News: Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by appoo, Apr 5, 2011.

  1. steve-o

    steve-o New Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    The entire federal budget is comprised of solely military spending? That is neat.
     
  2. Deep Wilcox

    Deep Wilcox BigSoccer Supporter

    Jun 5, 2007
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mother of pearl; could you imagine being some 80 yo retiree, needing oxygen and and multiple meds, and taking your crappy little federal voucher to Humana or Cigna or somebody to beg for an insurance policy? That plan does not work.

    You may as well kick gramma out on an ice flow into the ocean.
     
  3. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    No, its comprised of a lot of things. The problem isn't spending. The problem is less revenue then spending. We make decisions about the things we want as a nation and then we fund them. We were in balance with all of those priorities just 11 years ago. We drastically reduced the revenue and spent more. That is the problem. It is a combination of things but we shouldn't simply scream SPENDING! and ignore the fact that we spend for things that we want.

    So, if your plan is to cut things that people really want, then shouldn't we cut things that people want to cut. People love Medicare. A lot of people love many of the small discretionary things the republicans want to cut. A majority of people would like to see cuts in defense spending, which makes up 20% of the entire budget. Just a fraction under the spending on medicare. So, naturally, if spending is the problem . . . stupid . . . and we spend for things we want and people WANT to cut the military and people WANT to keep their medicare, then isn't Ryan just a spineless little pawn of big money interests that want something different then what the American people want?

    I'm sorry but any proposed budget that does not include a single dollar cut from defense is not a serious proposal.
     
  4. appoo

    appoo Member+

    Jul 30, 2001
    USA
    For someone who called me an idiot and stupid in the same post, you completely missed the point of my post. Actually, you missed the entire subject of what I was posting about.
     
  5. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    The 28th Amendment - Congress shall make no law raising taxes on the filthy rich.

    And this is what Banana Republics look like
     
  6. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
  7. Cascarino's Pizzeria

    Apr 29, 2001
    New Jersey, USA
    "Don't touch my medicare!"
     
  8. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    Well done. I love it "let seniors pick the health care tailored to their particular needs". What the F-- does that mean vfish? Oh yeah, it means if you're lucky enough to be an unusually healthy 65 year old, your government voucher might just cover a decent percentage of your health insurance, but if you're not doing so great, your ********ed.

    Honeslty, only a person who has been fortunate enough to be coddled in a secure work environment can possibly talk about the chimera of health insurance "choice".
     
  9. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
    I would prefer a variation on B). That is, let all the baby boomers die quickly so we can finally get our government back from their filthy leeching hands.
     
  10. steve-o

    steve-o New Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Sounds like that is what Ryan has proposed.
     
  11. steve-o

    steve-o New Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Cut spending in the middle of the war(s)?

    How about Ryan understands what is going on right now and cuts medicare and medicaid, leaving military spending where it is (because we are in the middle of the war) knowing that when the war ends we are in a position to either put the money spent on the military towards the deficit/debt or reallocate the money to medicare and medicaid.
     
  12. HouseHead78

    HouseHead78 Member+

    Oct 17, 2006
    Austin, TX
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The only way to end these private contractor boondoggles is to cut spending on them. :(
     
  13. cleansheetbsc

    cleansheetbsc Member+

    Mar 17, 2004
    Club:
    --other--
    Hey, just cut the inefficient waste and fraud from those wars for some substantial savings.
     
  14. JohnR

    JohnR Member+

    Jun 23, 2000
    Chicago, IL
    From Krugman's blog -

    He ain't kidding. Mark Kirk won a Senate seat in Illinois while claiming that he brought $500 billion in Medicare benefits to needy seniors that his Democratic opponent would have taken away. That was rich.
     
  15. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    You could very easily cut spending while maintaining the current presence in Afghanistan. Please.
     
  16. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    You see, this is how steve-o's brain works. I suggest that a massive spending cut bill should include the military because the defense budget equals 1/5 of our total government spending and our military dwarfs every other military on the planet by several factors and he says, "The entire federal budget is comprised of solely military spending? That is neat." But then, when I suggest that it is one major component of our budget and our debt, he argues in essence that all of that budget is targeted at two wars and that any decrease is an attack on our troops in the field!
     
  17. ceezmad

    ceezmad Member+

    Mar 4, 2010
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Red Stars
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I would vote for this candidate.

    http://wzus1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=us&s=a&c=a&l=dir&o=0&ld=5829&sv=0a5c4073&ip=8cd4a250&id=0E7126F3B890BDAA4B852E5731A647C3&q=chart+of+US+military+spending&p=1&qs=19&ac=107&g=28c0FytXo%BXr8&wz_cu=0&en=te&io=0&ep=&eo=&b=a010&bc=&br=&tp=d&ec=1&pt=The%20bipartisan%20consensus%20on%20U.S.%20military%20spending%20-%20Glenn%20Greenwald%20-&ex=tsrc%3Dtxtx&url=&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2Fopinion%2Fgreenwald%2F2008%2F01%2F02%2Fmilitary_spending%2Findex.html

    Isn't the plan that we will take over the world soon, I mean that is the reason we spend more in military than the rest of the word all together.

    Any charts on how the department of defense spends the monye, I mean Afghanistan and Iraq (now Libya) are a small part of total military spending correct?
     
  18. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And don't forget that he neglects to mention the fact that Gates has advocated some cuts.
     
  19. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Yes and no. There are the direct costs which Bush kept off budget throughout his presidency so that it didn't add to the deficit when analyzing the budget and the defense budget was still huge and one of the top three drivers of our budget and our debt. But it's not fair to stop there. Troop levels and other aspects of the stuff that was ON budget back then are directly related to fighting wars. So, there are direct costs of fighting wars and indirect costs in the overall budget that should not be disturbed in times of war.

    But there are still billions not directly related at all to the wars. Here is the deal. We would have to make the decision that we no longer want to be the top cop. That we don't want to exclusively be responsible for defending shipping lanes. That we don't want to try to control the internal policies of countries in the middle east and central and south America. That in a global economy where all of the dynamics are changing, we want to be a part of shared responsibility and not the prime benefactor to the world.

    Our role in Libya is instructive here. We did our bit at the beginning and hopefully, we are content in working with our partners and SPENDING equally with our partners as we move forward, including the aftermath after the government falls. As opposed to a policy of being responsible for all of the costs as we were in Iraq.

    If we make this massive policy shift, we can draw back on our deployments around the world and substantially cut our baseline costs. We can't afford this anymore. We are essentially providing the military blanket of security that allows all other free countries to operate freely (recognizing that there are some countries like England and France that certainly carry a substantial military burden with us, but the percentage to GDP is no where close to what we do). So, countries like Sweden, Canada, Japan, Germany, Ireland and on and on and on and on, get the benefit of the protection we provide with very little military costs on their own books.

    Now of course, we have gotten incredible benefits from filling this role, so I'm not simply whining here. I'm saying we can't afford to do it anymore and that the world has changed so much that we are putting ourselves at increased risk for filling this role.

    You remember the old argument from the right that "they hate us for our freedoms" when referring to terrorists? Well, if that is the case, why are Canadian and Swedish embassies not targets for attacks? They hate us for the control we exert worldwide. Why is this our burden?

    We can make ourselves safer and drastically reduce our spending and debt by re-assessing the wisdom of our current military policies.
     
  20. Chris M.

    Chris M. Member+

    Jan 18, 2002
    Chicago
    Great point.
     
  21. TheSlipperyOne

    TheSlipperyOne Member+

    Feb 29, 2000
    Denver
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    So when will the Dems in charge start hammering away at Ryancare for killing Gramma and Grampa?
     
  22. Kobranzilla

    Kobranzilla Member

    Sep 6, 2001
    NY F'in City
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They are starting
     
  23. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
  24. HouseHead78

    HouseHead78 Member+

    Oct 17, 2006
    Austin, TX
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    In the comments on Kobrazilla's TPM article, they're calling it "Republicare" - I like it a little better, as it tars the whole party with this disaster.
     
  25. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Wow. Just wow.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/memory-hole-alert/

    Heritage disappeared the 2.8% unemployment figure that is among the leading reasons Ryan's plan is moronic.

    I wonder what the deficit would look like if we reinstated the tax rates we had under Reagan (brackets adjusted for inflation)? It would be alot lower, that's for sure.
     

Share This Page