E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Jason Seher
Yesterday, msnbc.com's Carrie Dann chronicled the initial Democratic response to Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget proposal, including condemnations of the plan by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Steve Israel (D-NY).
A slew of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle took to the airwaves today to weigh-in on Ryan's newly unveiled budget proposal, titled, "Path to Prosperity." It's no surprise that Democrats have come out universally against the plan while House Republicans have all expressed support for the plan. Even though the messaging on both sides isn't necessarily following a strict script, Democratic and Republican talkers are using Ryan's plan as a convenient way to score political points.
Continuing Pelosi's message that Ryan's plan offers "the same old Republican choices for the American people," Democratic lawmakers likened Ryan's proposal to the failed push by former President George W. Bush to privatize Social Security.
On CNBC's Squawk Box, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) accused Ryan of ignoring the recommendations made by the Federal Deficit Commission, saying his fiscal outline uses "exactly the same language [Republicans] used in 2001 and 2003." Hoyer continued: “This is exactly the same rhetoric, exactly the same kind of plan that was offered in 2001 and 2003, and it led to the deepest recession this country has seen; extraordinary loss of jobs and a tanking of the stock market. Very frankly, that's not a path we want to go down again."
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee Kent Conrad (D-ND) echoed Hoyer's sentiments. On NPR's Morning Edition, Conrad termed Ryan's Medicaid cuts, "draconian," criticizing the plan for its unwillingness to take a true comprehensive approach to curbing spending. "He only deals with a small part of domestic discretionary spending," Conrad said. "He only deals with a small part of domestic discretionary spending. He does deal with entitlements. He doesn't deal with revenue; he doesn't deal with defense. And as a result, he has a plan that is skewed."
First Read detailed yesterday the White House's response to Ryan's proposal. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the plan fails to "reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice." Hill Republicans have clung to Carney's statement, targeting Democrats for not having a serious alternative to Ryan's proposal. By focusing in on the lack of an "adult conversation" on America's fiscal future, House Republicans have managed to overwhelming endorse the "Path to Prosperity" without giving the stamp of approval to specifically slashing healthcare entitlements.
On the same program with Hoyer, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) praised Ryan's plan as one that would put American on the right "spending trajectory. Hensarling said he believes House Republican "are united in embracing the path to prosperity" and attempted to frame the debate with Hoyer around the lack of a Democratic alternative to Ryan's plan instead of his entitlement reforms.
"As soon as the Democrats put a plan on the table and quit defending the status quo," Hensarling said, "then we can have something to debate. Right now they're defending the status quo."
Both Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) toted similar lines, championing Ryan's vision as a fact-based proposal that moves the country forward and challenging the president to have an adult conversation about the country's fiscal challenges, without commenting on the specifics of the plan.
"The president is certainly entitled to disagree with our budget," Boehner said, "but what exactly is his alternative?"
But as politicians on the Hill have used Ryan's plan as a launching point for attacking the other party, some Republican presidential hopefuls have responded more cautiously.
Mitch Daniels showed perhaps the most support in responding to Ryan's plan, labeling it "the first serious proposal" to address the national debt. Daniels described the rising debt as a threat to "the livelihood and liberty of every single American" and accusing its detractors of being irresponsible.
"Anyone criticizing this plan without offering a specific and equally bold program of his own," Daniels said in a statement, "has failed in the public duty to be honest and clear with Americans about the gravest danger we are facing together."
No other candidate went that far in their endorsement of the "Path to Prosperity." Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney used similar tacks, issuing statements applauding Ryan for "offering real leadership" and "setting the right tone" in confronting America's fiscal problem.
Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) attempted to distance himself from the pack by staying to the right of the other potential GOP candidates, saying in a statement that Ryan's plan didn't go far enough. Santorum embraced Ryan's plan for Medicare, but added that the provisions outlined in the plan should be offered to people older than 55, commenting that "seniors should be part of this solution."
The statement most closely resembling a rebuke of Ryan's plan came from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. In a statement released Tuesday, Huckabee called Ryan's plan "a small step to restoring fiscal sanity," but one that he doubts could ever pass the House in its current form. Huckabee implied that Ryan's proposals didn't go far enough in its cuts, adding "it's unlikely that this one proposal will be the ultimate solution to all of our economic problems."
Leave a Comment:
It's horrifying.
That said...
Paul Ryan's "Path" is better than President Obama's path...President Obama's path leads to $13 trillion in new gross debt, and debt service payments of nearly $1 trillion annually.
What's worse than horrifying?
President Obama's FY 2012 budget proposal.
That's what.
So how come Pelosi was not concerned about winning the future last year by failing to allow a vote on the budget?
God bless her.
Yeah, God bless her Spanky. You ever figure out how to answer questions, or does the lawyer in you Not allow such things.
Typical, speculate, insinuate, then Blame!
The GOP Mantra!
How much of that was actually President Obama, there Mixed?
Can you answer, or are You not allowed to either?
Oh, BTW, i'll allow the MSM to speak for America, since the MSM thinks they KNOWITALL anyways!
Treasonus MSM !
Did you ask me a question Rick?
What would you like to know my man?
Seems to me the 2 alternatives out there are: 1) ignore 2) pile everything on the backs of the middle class. Both horrifying. Raise taxes and cut spending; its the only way to touch the debt.
Indy Lib-
You just described the recommendations of President Obama's own bipartisan debt commission.
He doesn't like those recommendations.
He doesn't like Rep. Ryan's either.
It's hard to get a plan to address the nation's debt crisis "just right" for him, isn't it?
Particularly when he doesn't offer any input of his own, eh?
That's interesting Indy.
I've come across a lot of people who have gotten into a lot of debt. Many have been able to become debt free, or significantly reduce their debt by reducing their expenses.
See most folks are kinda stuck with the income they have, yet many can still dig out of debt.
So why can't the government do the exact same thing. Is the government incapable of reducing the amount it spends?
Cause see, should it raise taxes it will cause a decrease in revenue. Take a look at what happened in Oregon. Plus, take a gander a Cali - one of the highest taxed states around. Yet with all that revenue it still amasses huge debts every year.
Indy could you please explain the California situation? See we got slapped with a "temporary" tax increase a few years ago. It was supposed to fix everything. Guess what? More debt now, and they are trying to make the tax increased permanent.
Spanky, going after only the tiny little portion of spending that affects the middle class will do nothing for the debt. It may shave bits and pieces off the deficit, but the debt will still grow. You also have to cut military, close corporate loopholes, eliminate corporate welfare; in other words, make everyone share in the sacrifice, not just the poor and middle class. As long as republicans only focus on that 12%, they are not serious.
Yes sir, cut it all. In fact cut it back to $2.2 trillion, you know the amount they take in.
See brother, they are focused on the 12% at this moment. But our boy Ryan is looking at the big picture.
Wide view, right Indy? Say what's Obama looking at?
But see it can be done with just cuts. And that's good cause some people already pay enough taxes. Hey let's take a poll right now. It's almost the 15th and all. Everybody tends to trend conservative the first two weeks in April.
Well, except maybe AM, but that's only cause she's loaded.
True, Ryan is looking at closing corporate loopholes which is 1 point in his plan that I like. But I still believe to seriously tackle the debt, we have to cut spending AND raise taxes, at least to the level of the Clinton years. Seems we did alright in the 90's if memory serves.
That;s great, you think you could get Obama on board? He seems to think raising taxes would be a bad idea.
Again, most ofter when they raise taxes, they collect less. Oregon, California, etc.
Why can't we just cut spending to the amount of revenue? Is it impossible for the government to live within it's current revenue stream?
Indy, et al. - ignoring the debt will just make the next recession all the much worse. Piling it all on the backs of the middle class is in some respects a pipe dream and in some respects reality.
The pipe dream is that it will happen. The middle class is undergoing structural changes that have little to do with any type of wealth redistribution, but everything to do with what skill sets we and our youth choose to develop here on out.
The reality is that politicians, democrat or republican will look on the poor and middle class numbers and see trillions in revenue created by very small changes in hidden tax rates and income taxes. No politician will admit this but who really lobbies for the poor and lower middle class? No one!
Indy Lib,
We did very well in the 90's largely in part to Roth IRA conversions (where billions of dollars were converted from traditional IRA's to Roth's and taxes were paid on all of those billions creating a flood of revenue to the government). There was also a roaring stock market, and massive taxes paid on gains. The Roth conversion craze dried up. And the market's bubble burst. The increase in revenues were unsustainable, and can't be duplicated without risking another major bubble and bust.
If they did raise taxes, the politicians will quickly forget the new tax revenue is supposed to pay down the debt. They will simply spend the new found money and we'll never get out of the mess we're in.
Cutting spending, closing loopholes, and reforming Medicare and Social Security are the only way to go. Or, if the employment market picks up, tax revenues will rise again.
Its not just a matter of living within the revenue stream; to pay down the debt, you have to generate a surplus (kinda like what happened before Bush Jr. arrived). Here goes:
Indy Lib's step-by-step guide to Independent Liberation:
Step 1: raise taxes to 1999 levels. Step 2: take revenue generated during current tax year; that is what you have for the next fiscal year. Step 3: before a penny is spent on anything else, apply 10% of revenue to paying down debt. Step 4: allocate the rest accordingly.
If, along with the steps listed above, you also close corporate loopholes, eliminate corporate welfare, cut military spending, disengage from any and all foreign military adventures (it is the Dept. of Defense afterall), then I believe we will do alright.
None of us will have a shot at whatever political utopias we personally believe in with the debt hanging over us.
The clock says, eight p.m., but my body clock says 2 a.m., so this post will not be too long.
I just got back from Italy, where there was a really disturbing conference- I will have a long post on it tomorrow. However, for tonight, think about this:
People who cannot control themselves when using their credit cards wind up having someone else do it for them- by eliminating their access to credit.
That is where Greece is today, and where Portugal is heading.
So is the United States. It's closer than you, I, or anyone else thought.
Indy - I like it.
It'll never happen - too disparate effect on the poor and middle class, but it'd be a great start.
Will you remind us again why we CARE? Here's a hint Granny - NO ONE missed your daily I HATE OBAMA rants...
Well, will you look at that?
The poll dancing granny is back from her 'bunga bunga' party with Burlesconi (sp?) lmao!
PS: Rick - Am I the only one who smells vinegar?
why does every republican budget take something from the elderly, middle class, poor, women, anybody that's not wealthy, in the name of cutting spending, and than turn around and give the money thats saved to the corporate wealthy?
I SUGGEST YOU SHOWER FEISTY. It's just gross you smell like vinegar. You sure it isn't fermalgahyde?
indy lib (post 1.13) - sounds good, but can you find a politician to sell it?
None that could ever get elected american. Its just my little futile intellectual excercise.
Democrats Plan: Best to ignore the problem. It will probably go away by itself if we just leave it alone.
They are not ignoring it, they are collectively voting present.
You know following their "leader" and all.
JoAnnaSmith1
But when the Democrats try to tackle a problem (Health Care) they get nothing but flack from you. The Dems are the only adults in the room, and the republican deficits (that don't matter) are nothing more than a coward's way of raising taxes.
Greg in Detroit-
President Obama's FY 2012 budget proposal suggests that $13 trillion in new debt be added over the next 10 years to the $14 trillion already on the books, Greg.
It suggests that debt interest payments will reach $844 billion annually.
How many programs will have to be cut to avoid defaulting on those debt interest payments, Greg?
How many Americans will suffer to ensure that those payments are made?
That $844 billion represents more than 22% of the total of federal government spending for the current fiscal year.
Imagine having to pay that much to U.S. debtors...off the top...before you can even consider what you'll be able to spend on the needs of the American people.
The adults are the ones who are actually addressing the debt crisis, Greg.
The people who served on the President's debt commission, and yes, Paul Ryan too.
They're the adults.
The President...?
He's been the coward.
It's a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.....oh yes the rest of you......you'll have to make due!
The republican plan: Breaking the middle class, one broken back at a time.
Oh, pish. They have nothing against mass back-breakings. In fact, they see it as much more economically efficient to crush us all at once.
You're right of course Anna; I guess I just let my optimistic side get the better of me.
Give us the left's alternative, Anna Molly.
Ryan's alternative stinks...President Obama's debt commission's alternative stinks.
Tell us.
Then...tell President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.
Mission accomplished.
AKA - the I GOT MINE FU crowd! ;o)
They won't satisfied until they're the ONLY ones eating cake, and the rest of us are living off of cat food!
Yes Feisty, like the dems won't be satisfied until the debt service costs alone eclipse the total amount of revenue.
What then old gal, what then?
Or does obama have a plan? See the only one I have seen calls for freezes in existing spending. Now that's just silly right Feisty? I bet even you understand that won't cut it.
LoLoL You put little Anna Molly in her place, all right.
I never said democrats had a plan. They don't. The Debt Commission was a mistake from the start.
Feel better? Hope so. I live to serve.
And that's okay, Indy Lib. That's just the way you are. Much better than I am, I'm sure.
Seriously, Anna Molly...
Why was the debt commission a mistake?
Has anyone done a more serious analysis of the problem?
Paul Ryan has immersed himself in the issues surrounding the U.S. debt crisis (and, he's a debt commission member) and is very knowledgeable, but he's a conservative and approaches the issue from that perspective.
The debt commission brought people together from across the political spectrum, and 11 of the 18 panel members agreed on the commission's recommendations as outlined in it's Plan.
When Democrats on the Commission ranging from Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) to the founding Chair of the Congressional Budget Office, Alice Rivlin, support the commission's plan...shouldn't President Obama?
And...if he can't...shouldn't he offer an alternative?
Maybe Paul Ryan has it completely wrong...
But, at least he's got the guts, along with the rest of the President's debt commission, to publicly say what he thinks, and take the hits.
The President's behavior on the debt crisis has been disgraceful.
He was elected to lead...not to sit back and pontificate and nit-pick the people who are trying to do the job he should be doing.
Fact: 85% of the debt was produced by three republicant presidents: Reagan and the two Bushes.
Twelve trillion republican debt dollars!!!
I can't help thinking we've already had this discussion, but in general, the 535 members of Congress and the President of the United States shouldn't have needed a commission to tell them what they need to do to reduce debt -- otherwise, what did we elect THEM for? And it never had a serious purpose. The purpose was merely to move the issue to the backburner while we debated HCR. The commission took itself seriously, however, and now the results, painful as they are, have turned out to be embarrassing -- by the way, I predicted exactly this right from the beginning. It gives me no pleasure to have been right.
I don't give Ryan any credit for guts. Guts would mean not taking the easy way out by punishing those who can't stand up for themselves and don't have enough money to buy influence. That's exactly the opposite of what he's doing. But don't get me wrong, and you can stop badgering me about this. I don't give the President any credit either for failing to produce a viable alternative. Or the democrats in Congress. We are now reaping what we sowed last year by taking the easy way out on the tax issues.
The President began governing by committee with HCR, and just the same that you get when you decorate by committee, we're getting nowhere ... faster and faster. Stay safe, Bag Boy.
Paul Ryan better look to his own house. His district went about 55/45 blue in yesterday's election. That's what you get when you ignore the autoworkers who need your help.
Prosperity? They ain't exactly feeling it.
Am what is your prediction on the Prosser results? Will it stand or will the recount muck it all up?
As I recall wasn't there an issue in one of the Wisconsin counties where more people voted for Kerry than were actually registered?
Didn't a bunch of felons and non-residents alos vote?
As for the recount, I have no opinion right now. Recounts of late, as I recall it, however, have mostly gone democratic until paranoid Supreme Court members made new law that they immediately declared non-precedential in order to stop them.
Gee, I dunno, Spanky. What do you say you tell me for a change. I think there were some reports to that effect -- or at least more people voted in general than were actually registered -- but as far as I know those reports have never really been substantiated. Maybe you can look me up some official source for your insinuations.
Bet you can't. And besides, I think that the party that talks openly about hiring goons and thugs and using live ammunition against peaceful demonstrators, or even having someone shoot you to start an incident, hardly has the moral highground on campaign tactics. Who knows what else they've done.
What do you think?
Well first off I always in favor of live ammo. Tends to be more effective.
2008 special investigation by the Milwaukee police uncovered about 5,000 "extra" votes. Give it the old google whirl. So there is your substantiation.
And again, moral highground, not so much. Entertaining though, right?
So, prediction? Definitely most gone dem, but you got yourself a repub government.
I guess if the autoworkers get theirs, why worry about the rest, right anna?
I looked at it and rejected it before I posted my last comment.
Didn't meet my exacting standards, and I notice that you were so very confident of it that you didn't post it, either. But then, you never bother yourself with that kind of detail, do you?
I didn't say that, american. All I'm saying is that President Obama did for the auto industry what Ryan and other republicans wouldn't do, resulting in the salvaging of many AMERICAN jobs, american. (Why do you use a small "a" anyway?) And that seems to have worked out okay, doesn't it, as GM turned a healthy profit last year. But too late to save the autoworkers in Paul Ryan's district.
And apparently, they remember that. Who wouldn't?
Thanks Anna. Whether they realize it or not Obama saved America by doing what he did for the Detroit 3.
Anna, I rarely use caps, except to start a sentence or to emphasize a point and occasionally for foreign nations. Always cap "US" to avoid anyone confusing my country with the word "us"
The recession hit many of us hard in the private sector, I dare say anyone would be hard pressed to deny knowing anyone who wasn't affected.
You do realize that when revenue is up and flowing freely most people will just say, "oh, go ahead, take your pay/benefit increase, I don't want to have a conflict" There is no thought about future consequences until times are tough. Historically in the US, recessions occur every 7-12 years.
Visit Charlie Roses web site and listen to his round table discussion with big city mayors. Since federal funds to states can be cut, so can state funds to cities also be cut. This leaves cities with little recourse except for issuing bonds, raising property taxes, enacting local option taxes or to cut city services to meet obligations. The interview gave me new insight on the role of a mayor in a big city with limited and defined funds.
The country is quickly transforming to a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich......oh the rest of us......we'll have to fend for ourselves. The government is now controlled by Big Business.......and the majority of Americans are ignorant of this fact!
Considering business pays the wages of both the private and public sector workers and funds all government programs, why are you surprised?
Oppps forgot about them also funding foreign workers and other countries... Bet if we stopped buying food, gas, shelter, clothing and toys they would go out of business and then we could all turn to the government for assistance.
Ah the joys of symbiosis!
Or, viewed another way, the labor of American workers creates profits for businesses and merits being paid, and paid well. Because ... without workers, businesses are nothing but shells -- aren't they? Because .... without workers, businesses create nothing -- do they? Because ... those same workers spend the fruits of their labors, driving demand and increasing profits for businesses -- don't they? And because ... in their copious free time and generosity, workers pay the fair share of taxes that businesses have gotten out of paying.
Haven't they?
Ana Molly for President!!!
oh anna, what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Isn't symbiosis a wonderful thing?
You might enjoy this article, Ron. This is what republicans in Wisconsin envision for the rest of us.
http://host.madison.com/ct/business/biz_beat/article_98606c30-4511-11e0-9f5e-001cc4c03286.html
Destroy collective bargaining, create a mess of $30,000 jobs (with or without benefits, doesn't seem to matter), exploit them, and then tax the heck out of them to make up the deficit caused by all the tax breaks for the wealthy.
But pssssst. Don't tell anyone, okay. It's a secret.
He has to lay off so he can put who he wants in there instead.
correct me if i am wrong, but haven't the wealthy and corporate already gotten tax cuts both in 2001, 2003 and an extension of the same in 2010? why hasn't this already created a "Path to Prosperity," if tax cuts on the wealthy and corporate led to job increases, full employment, housing rebounding and prosperity trickling down as mana from heaven?
i would like to know how dismantling union collective bargaining, cutting medicare and medicaid, eliminating planned parenthood, the epa, pbs and the humanity for the arts creates a "path to prosperity" for whom and at what costs? what "investments" do these create for america's future?
Well, yes, but it doesn't say for whom this is a path to prosperity. Some conservative told us yesterday that everything republicans do is specifically for the purpose of helping people out of poverty and enabling them to enter the middle class.
And I believe that.
All evidence to the contrary.
Because, in short, I'm a Tea Partier.
Anna Molly-
"...I'm a Tea Partier."
It pains me to say this...but, I don't believe you for one minute.
But...humor me.
Where does President Obama's FY 2012 budget lead us?
What path are we on if we follow the course our President has outlined?
Gosh and I didn't think you had the, ummm, equipment to properly bag. Huh.
I'll gladly humor you, anytime, but I'm afraid it's not at all amusing. The path to disaster, of course. Seriously, Bag Boy, don't you know any other liberals who are willing to admit that their own party can be wrong ... or at least too weak to do what's right? Is that why you can't believe me when I say it? I believed you on the war, after all.
I just can't see how this is going to work out, can you?
Mind out of the gutter, please, and then show me where I used the word "bag," except to address Bag Boy. I'm more the Lewis Carroll sort of tea-partier. On the other hand, the necessary "equipment" for teabagging depends largely on your point of view, doesn't it?
sbv - America has a recession every 7-12 years, so not everything will be rosy every year, and those that have the gold tend to make the rules.
Secondly, any "path to prosperity" requires effort and a willingness to accept the costs of having that prosperity. The following Charlie Rose interview with big city mayors gave me fresh insight on what is involved in any so called "path to prosperity" It won't address your questions directly but you should be able to infer some answers from the discussion.
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11559
As for our debt problems, pay the price now or pay it latter. Politicians have been kicking it down the road for years and no economist has developed any proven plan to address debt either. c'est la vie
Hey where is the jobs, jobs, jobs? It seems like creating more unemployment by laying off federal government workers and where is everyone paying their fair share? Corporations not paying a dime while getting big government subsidies? Come on Get Real. It comes down to rich white folks not wanting "their tax dollars" going to educate and train minorities that have been coming up. Just a bunch of racist republicans.
Haven't you heard, liberals say that those unemployed will stimulate the economy by a factor of 1.64. No shlt USnavy retired and dennis of ohio raked me over the goals last year in selling this concept. Doesn't work for the rich thou, just the poor and unemployed.
That's right, and if you could follow an argument past the end of your own nose, you'd know why. The rich don't spend the money, or at least not enough of it. They tend to hoard money. People on unemployment have no other choice but to spend it.
Clear enough?
Republicans would probably see this logic better if their real goal was actually to create jobs. It's not, of course. Their real goal is to hoard money.
Sorry, AM-
But this issue drives me crazy (crazier?).
I keep asking the Boiler Room boys why so many on the left are simply ignoring the implications of the debt crisis.
So far...they're ignoring me.
I just don't get it. If the U.S. is going to have to divert nearly $1 trillion a year from federal revenue to debt service to avoid a default...
Who's going to suffer?
I guess I yell at you cause you're listening...
Again...sorry, Anna Molly.
oh anna, you are such a sweetheart, I have never known some one of wealth or otherwise just let a pile of cash sit around doing nothing.
I excluded the wealthy from the argument and you say I can't follow an argument past my nose? Do YOU have the capacity to read and comprehend? How easy it would be to utterly destroy your argument on hoarding and your inability to think logically.
Just a sample though...The wealthy still buy food, clothes, shelter, fuel and toys just like the unemployed, poor and everyone else.
Dennis had the right argument about the wealthy wheras you don't. Clear enough?
And to think that someone said you were a lawyer? Must have been funnin'
Please don't be sorry. I am listening, and I have yet to hear you yell.
Oh, american, you have no idea how many days I wish I wasn't.
sbv,
OK
We already tax the rich more than any other developed free country. 3% more than Italy who is next, 7% more than the UK who is number 3 .......
Our tax rates for corporations are the highest too. Of course the tax system allows companies like Obama's best buds at GE to pay nothing. Still the rates are up there at the top.
Why do you guys not get it. Tax rates do not equal tax revenues. The tax codes need to be re-worked, but the Dems will never do it - would they lose their control of their cronyism and social engineering. They also lose their mantra of blaming the evil rich. Why is this so far above your heads to understand.
Unions do not produce jobs - they siphon off income of workers to promote their political protection and political influence racket.
Planned Parenthood has no redeeming value, they don't offer women's health services like mammograms - that is a lie. They primarily and fundamentally are a facilitator of birth control by abortion. The tax payer doesn't need to pay for a womens birth control / abortions, except in certain situations.
PBS can make it own like everyone else. We are broke - we don't need to pay for puppets that can support themselves.
EPA is now a joke, simply a liberal tool for promoting the green agenda.
Bottom line - Broke companies don't create jobs and grow the economy.
Neither do broke countries. We are broke.
"starve the beast" till we can drown it in the bath tub, the republican motto for the last forty years.it seems to be working, they've got it just about where they want it. i see ryan has more of the same here, make the elderly pay more and with the savings , give it to the rich. sounds like more "trickle down economics". thats worked really well, i mean for me and others i know, we're makeing about the same as we were 30 years ago. except now we can't afford health insurance. but hey, we didn't have a pay cut, so i guess it's working, right?
I don't think it will do any good, but I must respond to this
yes, that is true, we do. I don't think they are going to run out of caviar any time soon.
That is correct as well, and I am glad that you recognize that their are some major corporations that are not doing their patriotic duty and paying their taxes. Historically, corporations payed as much as 40% up until the 1980's, when the allure of Reaganomics hypnotized a lot of people. I notice they didn't have as much trouble up to that point making a profit and creating jobs.
Again true, after all if their are major players not paying their taxes because of loopholes and other shenanigans, revenues are never going to equal the rates. I'm not sure about the rest concerning cronyism and social engineering, but it is your American right to believe whatever conspiracy theory excites you. And as far as blaming the rich, as long as a number of the rich continue to dodge taxes and act like a pack of privileged @!$%#s, then yes, others will continue to call them evil. Contrary to this assumption, being rich is not evil.
The first part is correct. Unions aren't there to produce jobs, they are there to protect the workers from getting royally screwed, and doing everything in their power that those same workers have the ability to get a living wage for there efforts. And they have just as much right to seek political influence as anyone else.
nonsense. PP provides many valuable health care services to women who would otherwise not be able to afford it. And no, like has been said many times before, no federal dollars go to planned parenthood for abortions. That is the law. Anything else contradicting that is Tea Party stew.
That's a maybe. Even if true, a lot of Americans love PBS and the programming it provides, and even diehard conservatives can't find anything all that objectionable about the content. And please, don't kick the Muppetts, none of this is any of their fault.
I don't know about 'liberal tool', but I think having a green agenda is damn fine idea, unless one really doesn't believe climate change is real, but of course the tooth fairy is.
Yes, you are very much correct on that one, broke companies don't. However, non-broke, very successful companies at the present time aren't doing a lot to create jobs and grow the economy here either. They are too busy dodging taxes, paying out ridiculously huge bonuses and payouts, and producing jobs overseas at wages that would never come near to a living wage.
Here's the bottom line from my viewpoint. And it is harsh. Present day Republicans are not interested in saving the economy for anyone except the corporations that bought and paid for them in the last election. They have no love for the middle class and seem actively engaged in doing everything within their political power to destroy the middle class. I believe that if we give in to them and their ideological, John Galt whims, this country will be a far worse place to live. Spending cuts are fine, and we need them, but we need everyone, and especially corporations, to pay their fair share, then we can talk about taxes being to high or to low.
Odysseous - your union argument is flawed as is bob's. Private sector unions are not the same as public sector and cannot be viewed the same. Current labor laws and workman compensation laws now protect the worker, union or not. Union rules can be detrimental to workers rights as well. Plus what determines a living wage? Specific skill sets or just the fact that one can turn a screwdriver and be a member of a union?
While not agreeing with some of the other of bobs comments I can't say I agree with yours entirely either.
After all we are talking mainly about discretionary budget cuts to get us back to a sustainable economy, cuts today don't mean cuts forever.
Your viewpoint on companies being...
does need to be addressed, ever stop to consider that if government presented an environment that promoted business growth and a strong economy we would have job growth? I dare say that if one looked at a companies profit and loss sheet that they pay out quite a lot in taxes and fees other than just income tax., regardless they are providing employment for their CPA's and tax attorneys. Yes their bonuses and wages do seem to be outlandish, I would be interested to see a comparison between the quantity of items produced vs pay and the cost to produce. Again what is a living wage? Jobs overseas, can you blame them? The American consumer was unwilling to pay the price of a "made in the USA" label, To get the cost down of course they went overseas. <sarcasm alert>Besides it is all part of obamas plan to create and maintain union jobs for the overseas worker.
When I read your last paragraph I just shook my head, only your last sentence made sense. Try thinking of what it takes to run a business, multinational or the mom and pop shop down the street. Every business has its own skill sets required to be productive. If the end user can't afford to buy your product or service your business dies. And government does effect costs.
The republicans are acting very irrational, how can they think this my way or the highway attitude will not push all the middlemen over to the left losing votes instead of gaining, not that I`m complaining I`m glad this all came out now. I have to say the Scott Walker thing really pi$$ed me off to the point I started watching all the repugnants crap and they need to be stopped. They should be getting scared by now or maybe they could save their money and not run in 2012 What is in that tea.
The federal reserve banking system is the biggest gang of economic terrorist in the world and we owe them over 6 trillion, almost half of our national debt. If we had a government for the people we would eliminate this organized crime ring, write off and take back our 6 trillion which was all stolen from the American people.
Why is it when ever there is a problem it is always the people who can afford it the least have to defer to those who can afford it the most. Why don't every form of government from the city,state ,national,and military take a 5 or 10 % cut plug up the tax holes for the rich. I bet that would put a big dent in the deficit.
Rich people are cheep bastrrrrrds
Bob--- Now I get it. You are sooo! smart. Please, get a grip, and stop speaking for the needs of women, unless you are one. Bob, let's see, that stands for Roberta right?
Girls we are talking politics here, not math, physics or chemistry, obama wants all of us to share in the pain after the curve and ryan wants us to share ahead of the curve. Either plan may already be after the curve.
Hey Spanky,
Ever see that court video of those two people in Ohio shredding Kerry ballots? Showed it in court just before they convicted them and sent them to prison.
I hear you're an attorney.
I know a cracker jack counselor like you has gotta be familiar with that one,....right?
Spanky
Have you done any research on the company that President Obama visited today? After peeling back a couple of layers I saw that on the board of the owning company sits Thomas Wagner ex GE bigwig. This GE thing is starting to frighten me. We are complaining of big business and this Democrat seems to be only interested in pushing this company ahead. I hope I am getting things mixed up but it is a little worrisome.
If you get a minute will you check this out? The company is Broadwind Energy Company. I usually just read but I am starting to get a little antsy with some of the things I have been reading.
Maggie you are spot on. Fear is legit here
So after 30 years of trickle down has brought us to 14 trillion in debt and real unemployment at around 15% the answer is trickle down on steroids. A new 25% top tax rate?? We can pay for it by getting rid of Medicare? I am now convinced that raising the top tax rate to 40% will both balance the budget AND stimulate job growth. Companies are now and have been downsizing and cutting benifits. This increases the bottom line and with the tax breaks, the owners are making more than ever. Why should they try to grow their company when they can simply cut back and make more. Raising taxes will get these companies growing in order to make the kind of money that they are acustomed to. If for some reason that does not work, at least we will have a balanced budget. Cutting taxes HAS NOT WORKED and a spending cut at the level that would accomplish a balanced budget is impossible.
THEOCK when the top tax rate was over 90% the Government actually collected less money. I'm not against a tax hike but not now. The economy can't take it,we need to get back to work and the banks need to start lending, the Gov. needs to stop the out of control spending until then this is all a bunch of hogwash.
JoAnnaSmith1: do you support Ryan's plan?
Ryans plan takes everything away from the less fortunate...and once again when the Rethuglicians get back in ..."ITS ALL THE RICH GETTING RICHER ". ... Vote these "BUMS " out in 2012 !
Say it isn't so---Do you think weve done a bang up job since we took over in 2006? I'm not a PROUD dem right now,things have gone from bad to worse. I'm really hoping someone good steps up in 2012 from any party right now both sides stink.
Both parties are owned. Banks, wall street and big corporations run America and the are destroying our country. We will come together as a people and demand real change or we will shortly be in depression and chaos. "We the people" are divided between two owned political parties and the united rich are taking us all down.
Ryan path rewards big business and punishes the middle and working class. It dose not address waste in farm subsides for corporate farms, foreign own mining companies, un-needed and unwanted military projects.
It's amazing how many people have simplified our current fiscal crisis - using our own financial policies that we use at home; mix in some rhetoric from our favoriate policital parties and server to the masses.
I offer to you all a couple key points:
- the Republicans are running on the platform that the deficit is the biggest problem that we face and must be solved. Do you think that this is the reason why Dems may be taking the position of waiting to see how the Republicans plan to fix this "big problem?". Do you remeber last year with Healthcare? the situation was reversed as it was the Dems who were stepping out with ideas - only to get the "Kill gramdma?" response.
My point is don't feel frustrated that Obama and the Dems have no comprehensive solution to "solve" the biggest problem that the Republicans see on their radar. I think the Dems view the deficit as serious but not critical. By the way, most economist say that cuts this year are a bad idea for the economy. Plans should refelect future change ( 2012 + )
- Our governement fiscal situation is not like yours ( and mine ). We CANNOT run at a deficit for too long or we plain won't be able to eat or sleep in a place of residence. This is not true for the government. When was the last time that the government brought in more revenue than it spent? That would be the Clinton administration. This means that for the last 10 years, we have operated at a DEFICIT. The point is it's the size of the deficit in relation to what the government takes in ( reveune ) that is important - not just the fact that there is a deficit. I'll give you an big business examples of the same situation - You-Tube has yet to turn a profit but I bet you ( and I ) would all want some You-Tube stock as a birthday present (smile). The reason is that investments in the future can curtail your revenue and force you to operate at a deficit for the hope/plan of furture profits. You-tube is spending more money than they take in, but in retrospect - this is what educational spending is - an investment. So is repair of the infrastructure ( roads/highway ) and building /upgrading electrical grids, etc. Would you really want to spend only what we bring in in revenue and stop all investment?
- we are still in the tail end of a ression. A big part of the Stimulus package was giving money to the States to support their budgets. Yep..Uncle Sam bailed out the State budgets. This meant that police, firemen and other first responders stayed employed. Medicaid and Medicare payments were still made to the healthcare industry. This took money we didn't have - again adding to the deficit ( DAMN! ). But the administration thought these costs were worth it. We still have close to 10% of the u.S. unemployed. This means 10% less revenue. This isn't going to change overnight no matter how many rallies are held.
- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security - Why are these plans in trouble? We have a growing population, that is getting older and living longer. Add to this that our standard of living is decreasing ( not increasing ) and more people are having to rely on Medicaid as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer. Congress needs to account for our increasing, older, poorer population that is living longer than expected. Here is the problem with this situation: the older you are, the more you vote. Older folks are a key percentage of the voters - why? because changes to these programs directly affect their everyday lives.
My point here is to outline that the entire issue is more complex than most seem to understand - mix in the policial rhetoric and you get what both parties want which is their bases yelling at one another.
Where's the cut in Congressional pay and benefits?
From want I've read and watched on U tube, Mr. Ryan's, path to prosperity, entails baby boomers to work until they die, seniors who are on Medicare and those on Medicaid will have to rely on private health insurers for their medical needs after Social Security and S.S.I are eliminated. While giving the wealthiest Americans tax breaks so they can invest over seas. That will then eliminate the middle class in America, and throw this country back to the days of soup kitchens and people standing on street corners begging for hand outs.
Mr. Ryan, if that's the America you want, by all means go for it!!!. I for one will always live by these words that were coined by the late great Ted Kennedy " For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die". and I suggest you sir will make them yours as well. As we are after all one Nation.