Ryan's Budget

[David G]

You know... for a while there I thought Paul Ryan might turn out to be an honest fellow, interested only in the facts and the best for the nation. Turned out he's just another lying, weasel of a politician. His budget appears to be another example:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/

[Gerarddm]

There was little chance of "honest fellow, interested only in the facts and the best for the nation." And yes, his budget proves there was no chance at all, actually.

[David G]

Another quick take - this time from the Concord Coalition's economist:

http://economistmom.com/

[David G]

And some thoughts on strategy from conservative economist K. Hennessey:

http://keithhennessey.com/2012/03/20...gic-challenge/

[David G]

Paul Krugman's take: "Flim Flam" --

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201...m-flam-fever/#

[Donn]

[Concordia 33]

Maybe what they say of Ryan is correct but if so, who else is even trying to resolve the budget problem. At least he appears to be trying.

What is most shocking about Mr. Ryan’s solitary cry for fiscal responsibility in the 2013 budget he proposed this week is what a stark contrast it is to the cowards and thieves in this town who are in positions of real power and responsibility yet refuse to lift a finger to avert the economic catastrophe.President Obama could single-handedly lead his party to negotiate withMr. Ryan and strike a deal that would save the country and place him in history as one of the great presidents. Just the sort of big, “post-partisan” presidency he promised.Instead, Mr. Obama has fled the field, piling a staggering $3.5 trillion in new debt over the next decade and hastening the demise of the entitlement programs. His only strategy is for the country to go fully broke like Greece and then confiscate any private wealth that might remain.His only attempt at tackling the problem was empaneling the bipartisan debt commission, which he then promptly ignored because it required — shocker! — spending cuts.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have behaved equally awfully.Congressional Democrats have been so resolutely irresponsible that they have not even produced a budget in three years. Even when Democrats had 59 seats in the Senate, firmly controlled the House and occupied the White House, they could not produce a simple budget.Truly, they are a party of Neros fiddling away over silly issues like free contraception while America burns to ashes. They are a disgrace and should be barred from any discussion whatsoever regarding the federal budget or the economy.

[S.V. Airlie]

It's always easier to bash anything proposed than bash what doesn't even exist. Ryan's proposal ain't great and goes against what I tend to think, but I I haven't seen the dems putting out anything to compare or even bash.Who knows those currently bashing the Ryan Budget,will may be bashing the dems, when and if, it ever finds the proposal more than just lip service.Now the dems are just having fun.

[ljb5]

At least he appears to be trying.

He's not trying at all.

His proposal is simply fictitious.

Most of it doesn't actually exist. The part that does exist is unworkable and none of the numbers add up.

If you think this is a real proposal, you probably thought Bernie Madoff was a real investor.

[wardd]

why the obsession with obsessive?

[ccmanuals]

I say let's compare it to the Democrat's plan.....uh.......er......mmmmmm........hmmm....ne ver mind.

Here ya go since you asked, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

[S.V. Airlie]

Ccmunuals.. In a utopian world this intro looks fine, but we are all individuals and not sheep, or at least what is stated as the premise to the budget,won't, I don't think, work. Fine if it does work but I'm not holding my breath.Yup, I'm very pessimistic.I'll wait at least until the turkeys roost.

[ljb5]

Ccmunuals.. In a utopian world this intro looks fine, but we are all individuals and not sheep, or at least what is stated as the premise to the budget,won't, I don't think, work. Fine if it does work but I'm not holding my breath.Yup, I'm very pessimistic.I'll wait at least until the turkeys roost.

No one here believes that you've given the budget a moment of actual consideration.

You believe what you're going to believe and you won't even pretend to consider otherwise.

The budget is over 250 pages, not counting historical tables, appendices, supplemental information, etc...

Did you even read a single word of it? Did you even click on the links?

How can you possibly claim to "think" about a budget that you've never even looked at?

[S.V. Airlie]

lj... Did your handler tell you to say that?

[Keith Wilson]

. . . who else is even trying to resolve the budget problem. At least he appears to be trying.

No, he's not trying to resolve the budget problem, except perhaps for the existence of the federal government. Mr Ryan's proposal cuts spending by some 5 trillion over ten years (round numbers). However, it also cuts taxes by almost an equal amount. It doesn't balance the budget until 2040. It proposes cutting the entire federal government with the exception of Medicare and Social Security to 3.9% of GDP. Defense spending has never been under 3% GDP since the 1930s, and he doesn't favor cutting defense sending. This, the rest of the federal government would effectively have to shut down. No Pell grants, no education funding, no CDC, no EPA, no FDA, no highway money, no air traffic control, no nothin'. There might be enough left over for the FBI and the border patrol, but that's about all. Mr. Ryan's budget, if we were to take it seniority, is a massive transfer or resources from everybody else to the rich.

Ryan is a follower of Ayn Rand, the woman who claimed that altruism is a moral abomination, and this budget is precisely what one would expect from such a person He is not trying to fix the deficit; one does not reduce taxes by over $4 trillion if one cares about the deficit. He wants to institute Social Darwinism.

Fortunately Ms. Rand's ideas are shared by only a fairly small minority of Americans. This budget is one more step in the Republican party's suicide through ever-increasing extremism.

[Donn]

[David G]

See that, David?
Donn is telling you that he's pushing the button on you for being "rude" to Jamie!
Maybe if you delete your post you can escape the imprisonment at the hands of the FIRST AMMENDMENT CROWD!

This reminds me of an old BMW joke, What is the difference between a porcupine and a BMW owner?

The prick is on the inside of a BMW.

Glen,

I learned a while ago to pay very little serious attention to Donn's cuteness. Of course, if he thinks I was rude... by being accurate about SV... wait until he sees what delecta called the poor ol' bugger (for no good reason that I can see).

[David G]

I say let's compare it to the Democrat's plan.....uh.......er......mmmmmm........hmmm....ne ver mind.

OK... you've had time now to look over the both of them... how do they compare?

Or do you need more time? Feel free. Do all the research you need. But do get back to us, won't you!?!

[David G]

Maybe what they say of Ryan is correct but if so, who else is even trying to resolve the budget problem. At least he appears to be trying.

I had similar thoughts about his last attempt at a budget. Then I looked at the details, and discovered that it was in no way a serious attempt at solving anything. It was merely a partisan grenade lobbed over the transom. It didn't do what he said it was designed to do. It didn't address the deficit. If enacted, it would have been a disaster.

Look at the details of the latest version. My impression so far is that it's even worse.

[David G]

Here's a simplistic - but as far as I can tell, accurate - thumbnail of his budget:

[purri]

This reminds me of an old BMW joke, What is the difference between a porcupine and a BMW owner?

The prick is on the inside of a BMW.

Incorrect. The anal-ogy is that of a Porsche and a porcupine.
"Prick" is plural and as a spinoff those mid life crisis males who buy Porsches are referred to as "menoporsches".

[John Smith]

Maybe what they say of Ryan is correct but if so, who else is even trying to resolve the budget problem. At least he appears to be trying.

There have been several efforts to resolve our budget problems. One side will not compromise on raising revenues, so those efforts have all failed.

One side is trying to rebuild our infrastructure, requiring American made material, to get people back to work. The other side blocks this effort.

The Republicans are pursuing their stated goal: make Obama a one term president no matter what it costs the country.

I think a second term of Obama will be very interesting. They'll no longer be a need to prevent him from being re-elected. The extreme right may lose its stangle hold on the Republican party, and maybe we can make some real progress. Something to think about.

[John Smith]

He's not trying at all.

His proposal is simply fictitious.

Most of it doesn't actually exist. The part that does exist is unworkable and none of the numbers add up.

If you think this is a real proposal, you probably thought Bernie Madoff was a real investor.

I'd say he's very trying.

[John Smith]

Anyone here know what the deficit numbers are? Or if Obama has had larger or smaller deficits than Bush?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...cit_chart.html

[Uncle Duke]

Humor, maybe?

[David G]

I say let's compare it to the Democrat's plan.....uh.......er......mmmmmm........hmmm....ne ver mind.

Here ya go since you asked, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Actualy, no, I'll just review the mothership posters like the one you provided and decide on that. Why? You passing out freakin test or something? I got your freakin test right here!!

Hey Hot Rod,

You're the one who suggested comparing Ryan's plan to the Democrats (first quote, above) while implying that there was no such plan to compare to. Since cc supplied the material for such a comparison (second quote, above) you can go ahead and do the comparison you suggested. Or... did you change your mind? Oh... and the test... it won't be administered or graded by me. But it will happen. And, so far, I'm not sanguine about your prospects.

[Concordia 33]

There have been several efforts to resolve our budget problems. One side will not compromise on raising revenues, so those efforts have all failed.

One side is trying to rebuild our infrastructure, requiring American made material, to get people back to work. The other side blocks this effort.

The Republicans are pursuing their stated goal: make Obama a one term president no matter what it costs the country.

I think a second term of Obama will be very interesting. They'll no longer be a need to prevent him from being re-elected. The extreme right may lose its stangle hold on the Republican party, and maybe we can make some real progress. Something to think about.

Really?

When was the last time a budget was submitted for action by a Democrat? All they do is complain that the GOP is obstructionist, but they never made a budget proposal. In fact, the Senate never took up President Obama's budget (remember President Obama saying "pass my budget now"). Ironically, the GOP did try to bring it to a vote. That whole obstructionist GOP thing is getting a little lame. During the last big budget crisis, new accounts say that President Obama and Boehner had a deal, and President Obama reneged.

[David G]

I suppose the "ne ver mind" part went right over your head.................

Nope - just too cryptic. I took it to mean you thought there was no Democratic budget to compare it to (as mentioned in my last post). So... what WAS the point of your original missive?

[John Smith]

We need to put Americans back to work in good paying jobs. then the budget will take care of itself.

[ljb5]

Really?

When was the last time a budget was submitted for action by a Democrat? All they do is complain that the GOP is obstructionist, but they never made a budget proposal. In fact, the Senate never took up President Obama's budget...

Oh, this is such tiresome nonsense.

Obama's budget proposal (2013) has already been posted on this thread. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview/)

Here's the budget for FY2012: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa...ets/budget.pdf

Obviously you don't understand how the budget proposal-revision-negotiation-approval process actually works.

[David G]

Ne ver mind.

I have however been browsing the two plans and at first look, they both suck.......from a big picture, long term standpoint.

Interesting. How so, in each case?

[elf]

The only thing I care about is the debt.

What a strange idea.

I can think of, right off the top of my head, maybe 8 things more important for the health of my nation and the world than that.

Let's see:

Good work choices for all
Proper preparation for adulthood for all
Quality healthcare for all
A clean and safe physical environment
Clean and safe food
Support of the arts and artists
Control of bullying
Rapid reduction of dependence on all carbon based fuel sources

[elf]

The government can borrow at an all-time low right now. It's the only organization which will do so. There is no large American business - it's all international, and, besides, job creation doesn't happen in the US with those businesses. It happens with the businesses which are unable to borrow from the banks because the banks are all international businesses.

On the other side credit for the federal government is easy now because the interest rate is nearly at the zero bound. And the positive effects of dealing with my list are to reduce the national debt by a vast improvement in the national economy.

Everyone agrees that the best way to help the economy is to reduce the unemployment rate. There are two ways to do that - help the small and medium sized American businesses that could hire if they could find a lender, and help the nation by permitting the Federal goverment to support employment of all kinds - almost all of which would go to furthering my 8 long-term goals. Teachers, doctors and nurses, environmental remediation and protection, sensible controls of social and physical hazards, development of alternative energy generation processes - all these things can be done by the Federal government but only some of them by private industry.

[ljb5]

Well, I wouldn't argue against any of those but, how do you pay for then with no money and the potential for no credit? The credit card is getting maxed....We can't ignore the dept.

It's obviously a Chicken-and-Egg problem. How do you get money with no job? How do you get a job with no education? How do you get an education with no money?

Clearly, the solution is that we must do all of the above in what is known as a 'virtuous circle.'

If you're only intersted in one issue (debt), you're destroying the cycle of wealth creation by ignoring all the other factors.

Besides, if debt is all you care about, you'd be screaming to raise taxes.

[elf]

Well, I'm glad to know that you support doing my 8 things while you're sweeping!

[David G]

OK, got it, sweep the debt under the table till later, works for me............

I'm wondering if you realize that no one actually is suggesting this.

Here's a link to some ways that people are (knowingly or unknowingly) inaccurate or unfair in their dialogue about contentious topics. They're known as 'logical fallacies'. You might find it interesting:

http://theskepticsguide.org/resource...fallacies.aspx

The one you engaged in right there is called 'Straw Man' --


Straw Man

A straw man argument attempts to counter a position by attacking a different position – usually one that is easier to counter. The arguer invents a caricature of his opponent’s position – a “straw man” – that is easily refuted, but not the position that his opponent actually holds.

For example, defenders of alternative medicine often argue that skeptics refuse to accept their claims because they conflict with their world-view. If “Western” science cannot explain how a treatment works, then it is dismissed out-of-hand. If you read skeptical treatment of so-called “alternative” modalities, however, you will find the skeptical position much more nuanced than that.

Claims are not a-prior dismissed because they are not currently explained by science. Rather, in some cases (like homeopathy) there is a vast body of scientific knowledge that says that homeopathy is not possible. Having an unknown mechanism is not the same thing as demonstrably impossible (at least as best as modern science can tell). Further, skeptical treatments of homeopathy often thoroughly review the clinical evidence. Even when the question of mechanism is put aside, the evidence shows that homeopathic remedies are indistinguishable from placebo – which means they do not work.


Was your straw man riposte simply a way to bow out of the discussion with a parting shot... or would you like to try again in a more considered way?

[bobbys]

As thoroughly uninspiring as this endless Republican primary has been for conservatives in America, they can take some bit of solace in knowing one thing. At the very least, there is Paul Ryan.
OK, the Wisconsin Republican and House Budget Committee chairman can be about as exciting as gelatin and fails to whip up a soaring oratory that might spur people to storm the barricades for him. But he is a very serious man who has offered a very serious proposal, at enormous risk to himself, to fix the dire financial armageddon that will engulf our children and grandchildren for many decades.
Not only is Mr. Ryan a very serious man, but he is just about the only serious man in a position of power — albeit severely limited power — who is desperately trying to address this situation.
What is most shocking about Mr. Ryan’s solitary cry for fiscal responsibility in the 2013 budget he proposed this week is what a stark contrast it is to the cowards and thieves in this town who are in positions of real power and responsibility yet refuse to lift a finger to avert the economic catastrophe.
President Obama could single-handedly lead his party to negotiate with Mr. Ryan and strike a deal that would save the country and place him in history as one of the great presidents. Just the sort of big, “post-partisan” presidency he promised.
Instead, Mr. Obama has fled the field, piling a staggering $3.5 trillion in new debt over the next decade and hastening the demise of the entitlement programs. His only strategy is for the country to go fully broke like Greece and then confiscate any private wealth that might remain.
His only attempt at tackling the problem was empaneling the bipartisan debt commission, which he then promptly ignored because it required — shocker! — spending cuts.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have behaved equally awfully.
Congressional Democrats have been so resolutely irresponsible that they have not even produced a budget in three years. Even when Democrats had 59 seats in the Senate, firmly controlled the House and occupied the White House, they could not produce a simple budget.
Truly, they are a party of Neros fiddling away over silly issues like free contraception while America burns to ashes. They are a disgrace and should be barred from any discussion whatsoever regarding the federal budget or the economy.
The Democrats should be allowed only to talk about contraception, since they’re just a bunch of pills that prevent anything from happening.
• Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.

[elf]

No. I don't think the debt is a problem.

However, I do think we have a lot of problems.

One of the biggest problems we have right now is a bunch of people who think the debt is a bigger problem than something like 28% unemployment of non-caucasian adults.

Another one of our biggest problems is that one whole political organization has spent the last 3 years obstructing all efforts to do anything about any of the other problems.

Another one of our biggest problems is that no long-term planning has been done in our society for a transition to non-destructive energy generation.

And the final one of our biggest problems is that no long-term planning has been done in our society about the creating of dignified work for people of all capabilities.

In the face of those problems the debt is a negligible concern.

[Keith Wilson]

Do you think the debt is a problem?

Once again, Ryan's budget does not address the debt. Yes, it proposes to cut federal spending radically, to levels not seen for nearly 100 years. It also cuts taxes just as radically, so we would still have huge deficits. It doesn't project a balanced budget until 2040. And even this is done with a pile of vague generalities about "closing loopholes, but no specifics; the old "magic asterisk" trick.

Mr. Ryan is not concerned about the debt. If he were, he wouldn't propose cutting taxes by trillions of dollars. If you are concerned about deficits and the government borrowing money, Ryan's budget is the last thing you want.

Actually, the easiest thing to do to reduce the deficit in the short term is nothing . The Bush tax cuts will expire, and the deficit will shrink to manageable size in a couple of years. Over the long term the most effective thing would be to go to a single-payer health care system. The real budget-buster over the long term is the rapidly increasing cost of health care, and the other 20-odd developed countries all manage to keep it under control far better than the US.

[ljb5]

Some people don't know the difference between the Washington Post and the Washington Times.

[bobbys]

[ccmanuals]

The repubs have been trying to kill SS and medicare since it was enacted. Bush came close but only ended up with the disastrous medicare prescription plan. Now comes Ryan to renew this crusade.

[David G]

bs - cartoons is it?

[David G]

[genglandoh]

If you look at the number you will see.

1. The Presidents Budget increase spending 19% from 2012 to 2016.
2. Ryans Budget increased spending 1.8% from 2012 to 2016 (basicly flat)

Obama Budget	Revenue	Spending
2012 estimate	2,627	3,728	-1,101
2013 estimate	3,003	3,770	-767
2014 estimate	3,332	3,977	-644
2015 estimate	3,583	4,189	-606
2016 estimate	3,819	4,467	-648
Ryans Budget	Revenue	Spending	Deficit
2012 estimate	2,444	3,624	-1,180
2013 estimate	2,734	3,530	-797
2014 estimate	2,980	3,446	-496
2015 estimate	3,232	3,536	-304
2016 estimate	3,449	3,690	-241

You can get the numbers from
The Presidents budget
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Ryans budget
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFile...ary_tables.pdf

[David G]

geng,

I haven't checked your numbers yet, but were you going to add more?

For instance - do you think that comparing spending increases is the best way to analyze and compare the two budgets? I'd think we'd also want to look at deficit numbers. I'd think we'd also want to look at how the spending is structured. I'd think... well, you get the picture, eh?

Once again - you've posted some numbers, with no context, no annotation or commentary, and seemingly no understanding of how they relate to the overall health of the economy or how they might affect the predicament we're currently in.

[John Smith]

Some spending cuts can be very costly.

[ljb5]

Obama Budget	Revenue	Spending
2012 estimate	2,627	3,728	-1,101
2013 estimate	3,003	3,770	-767
2014 estimate	3,332	3,977	-644
2015 estimate	3,583	4,189	-606
2016 estimate	3,819	4,467	-648
Ryans Budget	Revenue	Spending	Deficit
2012 estimate	2,444	3,624	-1,180
2013 estimate	2,734	3,530	-797
2014 estimate	2,980	3,446	-496
2015 estimate	3,232	3,536	-304
2016 estimate	3,449	3,690	-241

So, for the first two years, Ryan's plan is actually more expensive?!

And then after that?.... oh, who are we kidding, we know that budget projections are never good for more than two years... and Ryan's plan is particularly shaky simply because so much of it is simply hocus-pocus.

[genglandoh]

geng,

I haven't checked your numbers yet, but were you going to add more?

For instance - do you think that comparing spending increases is the best way to analyze and compare the two budgets? I'd think we'd also want to look at deficit numbers. I'd think we'd also want to look at how the spending is structured. I'd think... well, you get the picture, eh?

Once again - you've posted some numbers, with no context, no annotation or commentary, and seemingly no understanding of how they relate to the overall health of the economy or how they might affect the predicament we're currently in.

Should I assume you do not like seeing the facts unless someone also post a commentary.
I thought some would like to see the numbers and I included the links so you can get even more of the facts.

But if you must know My view of the budget is
1. Obama increased spending 40% in his first term.
2. Increasing another 18% is going to break the bank.
3. Ryan’s plan basically freezes spending at 2012 levels which is the plan I recommended on this board. So I support it.
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthre...lems&highlight=

[David G]

Yes, I find it useful to know where a person is coming from, so I can see if his facts/numbers support his position.

I read your thread from last year. Somehow I missed it then, but I think several people did a good job of pointing out the issues with your approach. For now, though, I'll just fall back on H.L. --


For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken