Peace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 And if youre going to continue harping on the tax cut without acknowleding that there is material in the plan to make up the difference in total revenue, then...welll.......youre just being pbills about this. And I NEVER said his plan was perfect or even a viable solution. You think Im NOT nervous about the idea of losing my home mortgage interest deduction? I ONLY said I admired Ryan's courage and maturity in trying to fix what ails the Country. I believe we are in some sort of violent agreement BTW. I just don't see this as nearly brave as most. There is a ton of party red meat in this proposal and very few cuts at his base. Again...no military cuts? Really? How realistic is it that this plan would pass? That bipartisan committee plan from a year ago had a much better chance of passing because it was politically even-handed in its cuts.
RkFast Posted April 5, 2011 Author Posted April 5, 2011 I believe we are in some sort of violent agreement BTW. I just don't see this as nearly brave as most. There is a ton of party red meat in this proposal and very few cuts at his base. Again...no military cuts? Really? How realistic is it that this plan would pass? That bipartisan committee plan from a year ago had a much better chance of passing because it was politically even-handed in its cuts. Dude.....there ARE military cuts. Over $80 billion worth of them. And of course he took a right leaning slant on how to fix this. He IS a Republican. But in crafting this, he did so with a lot of Democrats, including members of Bill Clinton's economic team. So this is far from just an effort to throw "red meat" at the GOP faithful.
Clinton, Bill Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Dude.....there ARE military cuts. Over $80 billion worth of them. And of course he took a right leaning slant on how to fix this. He IS a Republican. But in crafting this, he did so with a lot of Democrats, including members of Bill Clinton's economic team. So this is far from just an effort to throw "red meat" at the GOP faithful. I can attest to that. I got regular updates in between defiling cheerleaders at the NCAA tournament.
Magox Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 You ninny: I read the plan. If you think that lowering the tax rate by 10% to the highest earners and corporate tax rate is going to advance this bill, you're higher than you already appear. And by the way, I'll happily accept the 10%, both for my business and myself. And if you and Rkfast, think that lowering taxes (and it is NOT a broadening...read his plan FFS--he provides NO specifics) will fix the deficit, then maybe you also believe that enacting Obamacare will cut spending. Ok, so you didn't understand what you read. Got it! Thats all you had to say
Peace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Ok, so you didn't understand what you read. Got it! Thats all you had to say Yes, your specifics in this thread are so enlightening.
RkFast Posted April 5, 2011 Author Posted April 5, 2011 Yes, your specifics in this thread are so enlightening. We never WERE discussing specifics in this thread. Ever.
Peace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 (edited) Dude.....there ARE military cuts. Over $80 billion worth of them. And of course he took a right leaning slant on how to fix this. He IS a Republican. But in crafting this, he did so with a lot of Democrats, including members of Bill Clinton's economic team. So this is far from just an effort to throw "red meat" at the GOP faithful. Technically, it's under 80 billion at 78. That's 78 Billion dollars on 6.3 Trillion. So he took 1% in defense, one of our biggest wastes. I stand corrected that he agreed to cut some of the SecDef's waste recommendation...but even there, rather than agree to the SecDef's 178 billion dollars of identified waste, he reinvested 100B back into defense! Come on man: That's just assanine and he's just being a political jerkoff in doing something like that. My point is the same as its been since the beginning. I like that people are talking about this but he presented a non-starter without any pretension of compromise. Instead of trying to arrive at something practical, he published a political document that cuts taxes and keeps defense spending untouched, while slashing entitlements. This thing won't get done unless people in Congress agree to real cuts. Next up, the Dem plan calling for raising taxes 10% and cutting military 50%. Probably effective on paper too but also won't pass. By putting a plan out there like this, he all but insures there will be no progress on the deficit and that is my problem with it. This is just a grandstanding plan. We never WERE discussing specifics in this thread. Ever. Really? I'm quoting % and dollars from the report. You and Magox are not talking specifics. When I see the report's projected increase in revenue, I just laugh. Obama projected increase in the tax base too. Do you buy that? Really? Closing loopholes will increase the tax base even while lopping off 10% from the corp and higher bracket? Come on man. Edited April 5, 2011 by Peace
Joe Miner Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Perhaps he left the Defense spending on the table to have something available to bargain with? That way when the Dems bargain for cuts to Defense, both sides win.
Peace Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Perhaps he left the Defense spending on the table to have something available to bargain with? That way when the Dems bargain for cuts to Defense, both sides win. Great--a public posturing fight will definitely go far. It's grandstanding and I bet it backfires...and that's coming from someone who LIKES the plan.
Joe Miner Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Great--a public posturing fight will definitely go far. It's grandstanding and I bet it backfires...and that's coming from someone who LIKES the plan. I would like to hear what he has to say about not cutting much from the Defense budget. But even if he had cut twice as much as Obama's commission recommended from the Defense budget, there would be a public posturing fight. Republicans on the side of fiscal conservatism and saving our grandchildren, and Democrats on the side of looking out for the little guy instead of big business. The bill won't get passed, but at least something is out there. Could it be better? Sure. Will it end up worse? Definitely.
3rdnlng Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Nice little article here. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42745
Gene Frenkle Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Nice little article here. http://www.humaneven...le.php?id=42745 Nothing like a good Cheech and Chong picture to lend credibility to your article. Are you even trying today?
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Two One observation ands two questions: Observation: This is a total joke. They know this will never happen. You people calling this serious are just mindless droids. It's about as serious as Obama's saying we are not involved in Libya anymore because NATO is taking over Question 1: How will Medicare--which affects those old people that vote a lot--not suffer draconian cuts to its service without all this funding? Question 2: How will this create private sector jobs?
Adam Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 Spending cuts in Defense should be there as well, but touching the entitlements for politicians from both sides of the aisle is usually a big no no. So the fact that he's addressing this issue in a meaningful way speaks volumes about his character. This role that Ryan is in is perfect for him at this stage of his career. He's actually now one of the most powerful men in this country. And it's not "grossly lowering taxes" Go back and reread it Peace. Here's a hint for ya, one word Broadening ok, now go and figure it out. I agree Magox! As someone who has a lot to pay off with credit card mistakes and student loans, I have to say that its time the country tighten's its belt. With over a $trillion in debt, nothing should be off limits. Not social security, not medicare and not the military. People who want eliminating the deficit to be painless are in for a reality check. Paying debt is always painful and you ALWAYS have to give up things that are a natural way of life. Best way to avoid that is not getting in debt. That said, I think I will go punch myself in the face, for being so stupid and finding myself in debt. It ain't brain surgery- If you can't pay cash, it has to be an emergency.
IDBillzFan Posted April 5, 2011 Posted April 5, 2011 It's grandstanding and I bet it backfires...and that's coming from someone who LIKES the plan. You may see it as grandstanding, but it's also a plan. A detailed plan. A place to start discussions. Which is far, far ahead of anything coming from the other side of the aisle...a group so incompetent they wouldn't even develop a budget for this year specifically so they had someone else to blame if/when the government has to shut down. I happen to be a big fan of Ryan's because he doesn't just spout out nice little slogans. He has numbers ready to fly out of every pocket in his suit, and he routinely embarrasses anyone who tries to challenge his knowledge. His brief, quickly scuttled discussion with Obama during the health care meeting was man vs. toddler. All anyone hears from the left is "Where is your plan, GOP? Where is your plan?" Ryan rolls out his plan and now all you hear from the left is "He wants to kill old people and babies!!!" I'll take his grandstanding with backbone over the pussified, mindless, incompetent grandstanding coming from the dolts on the left any day of the week. It's a start. If someone on the left was smart, they'd engage, not mock. Unfortunately, they know they're out of their league with Ryan so mocking from a distance makes so much more sense to them. Good for us.
Magox Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Two One observation ands two questions: Observation: This is a total joke. They know this will never happen. You people calling this serious are just mindless droids. It's about as serious as Obama's saying we are not involved in Libya anymore because NATO is taking over Question 1: How will Medicare--which affects those old people that vote a lot--not suffer draconian cuts to its service without all this funding? Question 2: How will this create private sector jobs? Gawd you're an idiot! How does it create private sector jobs?? really? did you just ask that question? By lowering the corporate tax code ya meat puppet. ANd two, the only ones calling it draconians cuts that will allow those "old people to suffer" are the one's spinning the crap and the mindless meat puppets who hang on everyword that they say.
Adam Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Gawd you're an idiot! How does it create private sector jobs?? really? did you just ask that question? By lowering the corporate tax code ya meat puppet. ANd two, the only ones calling it draconians cuts that will allow those "old people to suffer" are the one's spinning the crap and the mindless meat puppets who hang on everyword that they say. How about drastically cutting the corporate tax as well as making substantial cuts to social security/medicare for people not already receiving or about to receive it. A clause can be put in that when the economy recovers and the defcit is cut to a certain point, some funding to those programs could be restored. Flame away- I know your knowledge of these issues is greater than mine will be, but that seems like somethin bipartisan enough to pass and logical enough to work (at least for someone with a small knowledge of how things work)
Magox Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 How about drastically cutting the corporate tax as well as making substantial cuts to social security/medicare for people not already receiving or about to receive it. A clause can be put in that when the economy recovers and the defcit is cut to a certain point, some funding to those programs could be restored. Flame away- I know your knowledge of these issues is greater than mine will be, but that seems like somethin bipartisan enough to pass and logical enough to work (at least for someone with a small knowledge of how things work) They don't even have to make substantial cuts in SS. The "Roadmap" plan he had earlier basically talked about increasing the age to receive benefits by one year like in the year 2060 or something like that. Whatever it was it wasnt "draconian" or "extreme" (Schumer), thats the talking points they use to sucker in the mindless drones (Dave NOrfolk, Pbills) so that they can parrot it right back to whoever they can. At the end of the day they will agree on a cut of the corporate tax code while broadening the tax base (look it up Peace) and close many of the loopholes and cut out some of the idiotic subsidies. But the Medicare plan won't make it, so unfortunately it will take a strong president who will have the will to make the big boy decisions and do something about the entitlements and Obviously Obama isn't the man to do the job or else he would of already been out ahead of this... Which is why Paul Ryan should be getting a lot of credit for at least proposing something that does address Medicare and Medicaid. In which he is by most rational serious thinking people.
Adam Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 They don't even have to make substantial cuts in SS. The "Roadmap" plan he had earlier basically talked about increasing the age to receive benefits by one year like in the year 2060 or something like that. Whatever it was it wasnt "draconian" or "extreme" (Schumer), thats the talking points they use to sucker in the mindless drones (Dave NOrfolk, Pbills) so that they can parrot it right back to whoever they can. At the end of the day they will agree on a cut of the corporate tax code while broadening the tax base (look it up Peace) and close many of the loopholes and cut out some of the idiotic subsidies. But the Medicare plan won't make it, so unfortunately it will take a strong president who will have the will to make the big boy decisions and do something about the entitlements and Obviously Obama isn't the man to do the job or else he would of already been out ahead of this... Which is why Paul Ryan should be getting a lot of credit for at least proposing something that does address Medicare and Medicaid. In which he is by most rational serious thinking people. Sounds very interesting. Unfortunately, I think the talk about cutting entitlements and the political rhetoric over it will scare the baby boomer vote away. I think his best chance- or anyone on the right's best chance is if both Obama and Clinton are on the ticket. I think that will happen. Something has to happen- the deficit and unemployment scares me more than a potential nuclear plant meltdown happening in our country. One you can leave the area to get away from, one you can't.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 6, 2011 Posted April 6, 2011 Gawd you're an idiot! How does it create private sector jobs?? really? did you just ask that question? By lowering the corporate tax code ya meat puppet. ANd two, the only ones calling it draconians cuts that will allow those "old people to suffer" are the one's spinning the crap and the mindless meat puppets who hang on everyword that they say. If you call me an idiot, at least please have the bravery to answer the question. I mean wow! Your CNBC logic of just throwing out "Tax cuts= Jobs" is not an answer. Yes, I understand you are completely brainwashed, but still, explain yourself so I can show you how stupid you are. I noticed the usual suspects are absent the debate here. Where are the anti-government garbage people to "prove" this will make the world better? I mean wow, Alaska, Tom and GG should be cheering this!
Recommended Posts