Ryan Says His Budget Would Slow Annual Spending Growth to 3.4%
- 0Mar 12, '13 by herring_RN GuideHouse Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan is planning to unveil a 2014 budget plan this week that would balance the government’s books in 10 years by limiting the annual growth of spending to 3.4 percent.
The budget proposal assumes that Congress would repeal President Barack Obama’s health-care law set to be implemented next year, Ryan said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.” That assumption depends on the unlikely possibility that the Democrat in the White House and those who control the Senate agree to repeal the president’s signature domestic policy achievement. ...
- 2Mar 12, '13 by tewdlesFunny, he backed away from his budget ideals when running for VP and now returns to them.
He is pretty good at letting us know what his budget philosophies are but not so good at math...
As for this independent voter...I am not impressed with Mr. Ryans previous "budget" proposals as there is nothing balanced about them...they are ideological but not financially sound.
At least he is doing something...
- 2Mar 12, '13 by herring_RN GuideSenate Democrats reveal budget proposal details to Obama
... The Democratic proposal, penned by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, seeks $1.85 trillion worth of savings over 10 years, through an equal combination of tax revenue increases and spending cuts, the Associated Press reports.
But according to the AP, about half of those savings would go toward repealing sequestration - the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts that went into effect this month. As the Ryan budget proposal will not plausibly get any major traction among Democrats, so will Murray's be a non-starter with most Republicans. ...
- 4Mar 12, '13 by MunoRNI don't think anyone argues that massive cuts to medicare will save money, the question is whether or not we really want to do away with medicare and if that idea has any significant support. It doesn't seem to be a popular idea, and Ryan doesn't make much of an argument that it is a popular idea, particularly when he rails against medicare cuts whenever he's campaigning.
- 2Mar 14, '13 by aknottedyarn GuidePaul Ryan Will Battle Paul Krugman To The Death To Defeat 'Keynesian Economics'
I figure Krugman has been right on target for a long time. Paul Ryan used to have the same beliefs until he decided the spotlight was more important than elders. So he has facetime and wants to steal the Social Security that all have working for and promised. The fact that that fund has been borrowed does not mean it can be rubbed out so the rich don't have to pay their share of the tax burden.
To voucher Medicare is to condemn many to disability followed by terrible, preventable, tragic deaths.Last edit by aknottedyarn on Mar 14, '13 : Reason: clarity of which Paul
- 3Mar 14, '13 by StNeotserQuote from aknottedyarnI wonder how the right wish to spin this? The old "poor people are lazy and deserve it" is an old stand-by but we're talking about people who have paid their fair share into these programs and have worked all their lives. To think it's OK treat old people like this is despicable and says a lot about a society that would actually do this.
To voucher Medicare is to condemn many to disability followed by terrible, preventable, tragic deaths.
Their children won't have the time or the money to take care of them after paying off their student loans and health care premiums. How much more money do the oligarchs want to squeeze out of ordinary "hard working Americans"? Seems they won't be happy until they have every cent.
- 2Mar 14, '13 by aknottedyarn GuideSocial Security was created to help the old, the young, and the infirm. They do that. A huge majority of these people worked their entire lives for their moeny to be returned as SS. The very young get SS, as Paul Ryan did after the death of a parent. The child of one of our clients receives SS because he has special needs. his parents continue to pay into SS as well as support this very needy child beyond what assistance they get.
Compare this to the hand outs given to banks, oil, sugar, corn, milk and lots of other things. I am not complaining about the dairy farmers who would be paid way less than it costs to produce milk if it did not have a subsidy. Milk would likely be $10.00 per gal. at even the cheapest places. The lack of taxation on the stocks traded puts more money off shore and not taxed. This is another form of hand out.
The people need to recognize that these same tea hat people, like Ryan, voted for all the non-funded and debt producing bills. Personally I think the sequester funds should have come from the salaries of Congress and the removal of their health care coverage. I suspect things would be different if they were on the receiving end of losses caused by their incompetence.