• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1%

I don't get it...what part of the factual numbers in both budgets opinions?

"The Ryan budget aspires to cut the budget deficit (as a share of the economy) from 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, known as GDP, last year to 1.2 percent in 2022. That's the same 2022 deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates we would reach anyway if we made no significant legislative changes affecting the budget for the next 10 years (see office's "baseline" projections here).

Policywise, of course, the Ryan budget aspires to pursue a path that's radically different from putting the budget on autopilot. Under current tax law (which calls for all of President Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of this year), federal revenue would rise from a recession-depressed 15.4 percent of GDP last year to 21.2 percent in 2022. By contrast, the Ryan budget would hold revenue to 18.7 percent of GDP in 2022. Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal outlays would fall from 24.1 percent of GDP last year to 22.4 percent in 2022. By contrast, the Ryan budget would cut spending to 19.8 percent of GDP in 2022."

Paul Ryan Budget Won't Solve Deficit Crisis - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)
 
"The Ryan budget aspires to cut the budget deficit (as a share of the economy) from 8.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product, known as GDP, last year to 1.2 percent in 2022. That's the same 2022 deficit that the Congressional Budget Office estimates we would reach anyway if we made no significant legislative changes affecting the budget for the next 10 years (see office's "baseline" projections here).

Policywise, of course, the Ryan budget aspires to pursue a path that's radically different from putting the budget on autopilot. Under current tax law (which calls for all of President Bush's tax cuts to expire at the end of this year), federal revenue would rise from a recession-depressed 15.4 percent of GDP last year to 21.2 percent in 2022. By contrast, the Ryan budget would hold revenue to 18.7 percent of GDP in 2022. Under current law, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal outlays would fall from 24.1 percent of GDP last year to 22.4 percent in 2022. By contrast, the Ryan budget would cut spending to 19.8 percent of GDP in 2022."

Paul Ryan Budget Won't Solve Deficit Crisis - Economic Intelligence (usnews.com)

OH, I get it...the cool-aid prevents you from addressing the fact that your guy's budget is woefully worse so you continue to post up links to those who bash Ryan's budget. To be clear, I HATE both of them as neither address the debt until after I am dead!...but then what do I care...I will be DEAD!
 
Opinion noted not shared. Obama promotes crony capitalism and works to help the crony capitalist billionaires by making more and more people dependent on the government which these uber rich types run

And he repeatedly advocates programs to help the rest of Americans as well. The GOP helps nobody but the wealthy.

And in other breaking news - the sun rises in the east tomorrow.
 
OH, I get it...the cool-aid prevents you from addressing the fact that your guy's budget is woefully worse so you continue to post up links to those who bash Ryan's budget. To be clear, I HATE both of them as neither address the debt until after I am dead!...

The experts state that Ryan's budget deficit over the next decade is bigger than the President's deficit over the same period, so your opinion is of no consequence to me.


but then what do I care...I will be DEAD!

Because with right wing libertarians, its all about them. Got it!
 
Last edited:
Well, If you're going to quote someone it would help if you are accurate else it is a paraphrase. I'm sure if you ever say something noteworthy you will appreciate it when others quote you if they do it accurately.
Well the definition of reality is "facts of existence"... So im sorry i "misquoted" him with a synonym
 
The experts state that Ryan's budget deficit over the next decade is bigger than the President's deficit over the same period, so your opinion is of no consequence to me.

So...reading the two budgets is beneath you? You had rather listen to someone tell you what it says? Like economist? Like the ones who predicted the ’08 collapse? OH yeah right they missed that one…so that makes them credible how?

Because with right wing libertarians, its all about them. Got it!

Tell me honestly it is not about you...self-interest is the most basic human nature...it's called survival.
 
And he repeatedly advocates programs to help the rest of Americans as well. The GOP helps nobody but the wealthy.

And in other breaking news - the sun rises in the east tomorrow.

addicting more and more people to government and fueling class envy as an excuse for failure is hardly good for the rest of America. Its good for people like you and other people who work for the Dem party or gain power through the dem party being in office
 
addicting more and more people to government and fueling class envy as an excuse for failure is hardly good for the rest of America. Its good for people like you and other people who work for the Dem party or gain power through the dem party being in office

Yup gov bad, bad bad gov!
 
Yup gov bad, bad bad gov!

it is when it is wasteful and engages in unconstitutional activities. You of course think we need more government and we need to give it more and more money
 
it is when it is wasteful and engages in unconstitutional activities. You of course think we need more government and we need to give it more and more money

What unconsitutional activities does the gov engage in?
And its considered "wasting money" when it offers a helping hand to its citizens you know instead of killing some 3rd world citizen?
 
So...reading the two budgets is beneath you? You had rather listen to someone tell you what it says? Like economist? Like the ones who predicted the ’08 collapse? OH yeah right they missed that one…so that makes them credible how?

I've read the budget plans, and the Ryan plan cuts revenues so much more than spending the deficit is larger that projected if we do nothing. Basically what is does is throw seniors under the bus to give the rich bigger tax cuts, so it adds to the deficit rather than reducing it,

If you add in Romney's pledge to increase spending on the military, that creates a trillion dollars more in deficit spending over the next decade.

The GOP plan is just Bush redux, so thanks but no thanks!


And they didn't miss it:

Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right

"Outside government, doomsday-ing over the repeal of Glass-Steagall seemed far more palatable a position to take. Edward Kane, a finance professor at Boston College, warned that "nobody will be able to discipline a Citigroup" once the legislation passed, because the banks would be too big and the issues too complex.

"It made it possible for the very big firms to take risks in away that would require a great deal of investment risk and time for regulatory agencies," Kane recalled ten years later. "You had people who could basically outplay the regulators."

Jeffrey Garten, who at the time had left his post as Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade at the Clinton White House, wrote in the New York Times that if these new "megabanks" were to falter, "they could take down the entire global financial system with them."

"Sooner or later, perhaps starting with the next serious economic downturn," he wrote, "the US will have to confront one of the great challenges of our times: how does a sovereign nation govern itself effectively when politics are national and business is global?"

Consumer protection advocate Ralph Nader, meanwhile, was far more succinct in his skepticism. "We will look back at this and wonder how the country was so asleep," he said at the time. "It's just a nightmare."

Glass-Steagall Act: The Senators And Economists Who Got It Right



Tell me honestly it is not about you...self-interest is the most basic human nature...it's called survival.

Its not about me, I'm doing okay, my concern is for our country's economy and my fellow citizens.

Only far right conservatives care more about themselves than they do the economy and their fellow citizens.
 
Last edited:
What unconsitutional activities does the gov engage in?
And its considered "wasting money" when it offers a helping hand to its citizens you know instead of killing some 3rd world citizen?

half of what the federal government does is not authorized by the constitution. and yes keeping people dependent on government so they vote for those who supply the public tit they suck on is wasting money
 
half of what the federal government does is not authorized by the constitution.
What would that be?

and yes keeping people dependent on government so they vote for those who supply the public tit they suck on is wasting money
Ahhh yes...
You do realize people who are impoverished that rely on gov programs to help them dont have high turnouts...
 
They didn't miss it:

Let me get it straight...you post about how three people predicted it and it STILL happened...and this makes for compelling evidence how. So what about the others? You know the ones who were FOR it...then as now there are those on both sides of the isle who supported/opposed it as they do the BHO/Ryan budgets now. In the end who is right? Only time will tell.

Again, just look at the numbers they project yourself...
 
Let me get it straight...you post about how three people predicted it and it STILL happened...and this makes for compelling evidence how. So what about the others? You know the ones who were FOR it...then as now there are those on both sides of the isle who supported/opposed it as they do the BHO/Ryan budgets now. In the end who is right? Only time will tell.

Again, just look at the numbers they project yourself...

That's more than you've posted to back up your claims that the Ryan budget would lower the deficit?

I've told you I've looked at the numbers and agree with the experts, Ryan's budget proposal increases the deficit due to the tax cuts to the rich.

And Romney's pledge to increase military spending increases the deficit even more.

And unlike you, I have enough confidence in my position, and that enough of my fellow citizens agree, to bet that Romney loses in November.
 
I've read the budget plans, and the Ryan plan cuts revenues so much more than spending the deficit is larger that projected if we do nothing. Basically what is does is throw seniors under the bus to give the rich bigger tax cuts, so it adds to the deficit rather than reducing it,
Wrong. Nothing changes for people over 55 right now. People under 55 will need to change their retirement plans to allocate a lesser amount of it from social security. I know I have, I dont expect it to be there at all when I retire.
If you add in Romney's pledge to increase spending on the military, that creates a trillion dollars more in deficit spending over the next decade.
Increased spending in readiness and technology will still equal less spending than in an active shooting conflict, which we will not be engaged in after 2014? 2013?

Regarding Glass Steagel, unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn there. Reversing the financial instruments and processes is like a gordian knot now, there is almost no way to do it. I agree with tightening regulation but I dont agree with how Dodd/Frank went about it. The regulation should not be so independent that it is beyond congressional review. There are ways to pass regulation that requires the President to make final decisions and sign an executive order to a final action. Pushing it off to a appointed panel, even with Senate review is ludicrous. We have too much of that sort of responsibility dodging already.
 
That's more than you've posted to back up your claims that the Ryan budget would lower the deficit?

I've told you I've looked at the numbers and agree with the experts, Ryan's budget proposal increases the deficit due to the tax cuts to the rich.
I didn’t post any data as I thought you could view it on your own. I also hoped you would take a comparative analysis of the two plans as I suggested, but since you want to ‘believe’ the ‘experts’ let me help you out. Per NYT:

Deficit in 2016
BHO plan - $529b
PTP - $241b

Debt accumulated in 2022
BHO plan - $6.4t
PTP - $3.1t

Balances the budget
BHO plan - NO
PTP – by 2040

New revenues
BHO plan – 1.5t over 10 years
PTP - NO

Comparing Party Budget Plans - Graphic - NYTimes.com

So the BHO plan projects TWICE the increase in 2016 deficit, TWICE the increase in debt in 10yrs and NEVER balances the budget and you ‘looked at the numbers’ and like this plan better…that cool-aid is STRONG! I hope they don’t run out…for their sake.

And Romney's pledge to increase military spending increases the deficit even more.

And unlike you, I have enough confidence in my position, and that enough of my fellow citizens agree, to bet that Romney loses in November.
Again, this discussion is not about Romney…why do you continue to divert?
 
Wrong. Nothing changes for people over 55 right now. People under 55 will need to change their retirement plans to allocate a lesser amount of it from social security. I know I have, I dont expect it to be there at all when I retire.

So you are thinking seniors will happily vote to be thrown under the bus in ten years from now to enable more government spending and even bigger tax cuts for the rich???
Paying $14,000 a year may not be a burden to you but it sure as hell would be for most seniors.

Increased spending in readiness and technology will still equal less spending than in an active shooting conflict, which we will not be engaged in after 2014? 2013?

We can increase readiness and technology by cutting other wasteful and no longer needed areas as the president has ordered, or we can increase our deficit by more spending on the military just as we did under Bush, as Romney has pledged. No thanks!

Regarding Glass Steagel, unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn there. Reversing the financial instruments and processes is like a gordian knot now, there is almost no way to do it. I agree with tightening regulation but I dont agree with how Dodd/Frank went about it. The regulation should not be so independent that it is beyond congressional review. There are ways to pass regulation that requires the President to make final decisions and sign an executive order to a final action. Pushing it off to a appointed panel, even with Senate review is ludicrous. We have too much of that sort of responsibility dodging already.

The "horse was out of the barn" after the Great Depression when they separated investment banks and commercial banks the first time. HR 1489 does it again, and has 53 co-sponsors. Its time to dismantle the banks too big to fail that require government bailouts to prevent world wide economic depression.
 
That's more than you've posted to back up your claims that the Ryan budget would lower the deficit?

I've told you I've looked at the numbers and agree with the experts, Ryan's budget proposal increases the deficit due to the tax cuts to the rich.

And Romney's pledge to increase military spending increases the deficit even more.

And unlike you, I have enough confidence in my position, and that enough of my fellow citizens agree, to bet that Romney loses in November.

do you support more and more taxes on the rich if you thought it could pay down the deficit?
 
do you support more and more taxes on the rich if you thought it could pay down the deficit?

I know that I support more taxes on all income earners to help pay our bills. That has been my long standing position. And that includes my taxes as well.
 
I know that I support more taxes on all income earners to help pay our bills. That has been my long standing position. And that includes my taxes as well.

your plans would mean those who pay too much pay far far more while those who don't pay enough often still do not pay enough to teach them the cost of too much government
 
your plans would mean those who pay too much pay far far more while those who don't pay enough often still do not pay enough to teach them the cost of too much government

We all can bitch and whine about the other guy not paying enough. Lets stop the whining and bitching and all pitch in for heavens sake. Our grandkids will thank us for it.
 
I didn’t post any data as I thought you could view it on your own. I also hoped you would take a comparative analysis of the two plans as I suggested, but since you want to ‘believe’ the ‘experts’ let me help you out. Per NYT:

Deficit in 2016
BHO plan - $529b
PTP - $241b

Debt accumulated in 2022
BHO plan - $6.4t
PTP - $3.1t

Balances the budget
BHO plan - NO
PTP – by 2040

New revenues
BHO plan – 1.5t over 10 years
PTP - NO

Comparing Party Budget Plans - Graphic - NYTimes.com

So the BHO plan projects TWICE the increase in 2016 deficit, TWICE the increase in debt in 10yrs and NEVER balances the budget and you ‘looked at the numbers’ and like this plan better…that cool-aid is STRONG! I hope they don’t run out…for their sake.


Again, this discussion is not about Romney…why do you continue to divert?


From your source:

"But by 2016, the deficit would fall to $241 billion by Republican estimates."

You go with the Republican estimates if you wish, and I'll go with the analysis by the CBO that shows that Ryan's budget increases the deficit above what is projected.

The Republicans in the Bush administration also estimated they could increase spending on the military and cut taxes for the rich. That just produced more debt. No thanks!

Additionally, the GOP plan would end Medicare as we know it, and seniors would be faced with spending over $14,000 a year for health care.

"The House Budget Committee blueprint for spending and taxation over the next decade would reshape Medicare into a system of private insurance plans, shrink programs for the poor and turn them over to state governments."

That's not solving the health care problem that is just throwing seniors to the wolves.

While you article correctly points out this won't pass Congress, it is going to make for incredibly powerful ad for the general election campaign. And for that, I thank Paul Ryan and any Republican stupid enough to expose his intentions against seniors before the election.

"CBO states Paul Ryan's budget would actually increase deficit in first ten years

Continue reading on Examiner.com CBO states Paul Ryan's budget would actually increase deficit in first ten years - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com CBO states Paul Ryan's budget would actually increase deficit in first ten years - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com
 
Last edited:
We all can bitch and whine about the other guy not paying enough. Lets stop the whining and bitching and all pitch in for heavens sake. Our grandkids will thank us for it.

I already pay more federal income taxes than millions and millions of people who demand more government. I want less government. when those who want more start paying their fair share maybe I can see your point
 
do you support more and more taxes on the rich if you thought it could pay down the deficit?

No, all we need to do is return to the progressive tax rates of the 90s, cut our military spending, increase the cap on SS, and upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
 
Back
Top Bottom