Republicans to cut $4,000,000,000,000 over 10 years

[Atheist-Lite]

I'll believe it when I see it, stopping corporate welfare that is. Hard to take any budget talk seriously when the only mention of the huge military spending in the US is "accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon." Inefficiencies? That's it?

They'll promise everything to get elected. It is likely they'll pull the ladder of democracy up with them when they've gained power given the way the thunderclouds are rolling. They can afford to lie a lot more than usual given the circumstance.

[Coito ergo sum]

REPUBLICAN HOUSE PROPOSES CUTTING $5.8 TRILLION OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS

Apr 05, 2011 (SmarTrend(R) News Watch via COMTEX) -- The Republican controlled House of Representatives proposed an ambitious budget plan this morning that would cut $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade. For 2012, the plan called for $3.53 trillion in spending, $179 billion less than President Obama's plan.
The proposal, drafted principally by Wisconsin representative Paul D. Ryan, the new chairman of the budget committee, proposes major cuts to federal health programs, including repealing the signature health-care reform law passed last year.

It also proposes major changes to the tax code, capping both the top income tax rate and the corporate tax rate at 25%, from the current 35%, and eliminating what the report calls a "burdensome tangle of loopholes."

"This budget improves incentives for job creators to work, invest and innovate in the United States," said a summary of the proposal, which Republicans are calling the "Path to Prosperity."

The spending cuts primarily target Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and scores of other programs designed to benefit the elderly and the poor.

Democrats criticized the plan as an extreme proposal, which relies primarily on dismantling programs that benefit the lower- and middle-class, and only benefits corporations and wealthy individuals.

The proposal would spend $6.2 trillion less over the next ten years than the plan President Obama has proposed..

http://www.zacks.com/research/get_news.php?id=095l7512

[Coito ergo sum]

The plan, drafted principally by Representative Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who is chairman of the Budget Committee, proposes not only to limit federal spending and reconfigure major federal health programs, but also to rewrite the tax code, cutting the top tax rate for both individuals and corporations to 25 percent from 35 percent, reducing the number of income tax brackets and eliminating what it calls a “burdensome tangle of loopholes.”

At a news conference Tuesday on Capitol Hill, Mr. Ryan, surrounded by his fellow Republicans from the budget committee, alluded to the power of the large freshman class and its Tea Party contingent who have helped to propel the fiscal fight forward. “The new people did not come here for a political career,” he said. “They came here for a cause. This isn’t a budget. This a cause.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/us/po ... udget.html

Paul Ryan ain't a bad fella. Seems like he has some fire in the belly. A little vinegar is good - he and Chris Christie have the right attitude.

[sandinista]

I'll believe it when I see it, stopping corporate welfare that is. Hard to take any budget talk seriously when the only mention of the huge military spending in the US is "accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon." Inefficiencies? That's it?

They'll promise everything to get elected. It is likely they'll pull the ladder of democracy up with them when they've gained power given the way the thunderclouds are rolling. They can afford to lie a lot more than usual given the circumstance.

I wonder if anyone still actually believes a word coming out of a mainstream politicians mouth.

[Coito ergo sum]

I generally don't. I listen to what they say and wait for what happens.

I do believe what comes out of Chris Christie's mouth (governor of New Jersey). That guy has talked the talk, and walked the walk. What he says he's going to do, he does. And, he's not afraid to not be liked. He actually, shocker, answers questions posed to him directly and without equivocation.

Paul Ryan comes across as a straight shooter, but I haven't heard enough of him yet to know if what he says matches what he does.

[Warren Dew]

I'll believe it when I see it, stopping corporate welfare that is.

I believe that Ryan means what he says there, and if it's passed it might even last for a few years. Bailouts might even be stopped, but the tax simplification for corporations is likely to erode over time, in my opinion.

They'll promise everything to get elected.

Promises like "we're going to cut medicaid" and "we're going to cut agricultural subsidies" are the kind of thing that prevent you from being reelected, not the kind of thing that helps you. That's why I believe Ryan really does want what's best for the U.S. - because he's willing to hurt his reelection chances for it.

The bill will founder in the Senate on the agricultural subsidies, though. The farm states control too many senate seats. Hopefully the rest of it can make it through.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are no spending "cuts." The "extreme" and "harsh" Ryan proposals are, it seems, just restraints on the proposed increased spending.

Forget all this talk about giant “spending cuts” of $6.2 trillion in Congressman Ryan’s budget plan. That’s music to my ears, but it’s also based on Washington’s bizarre budget math – i.e., the screwy system where politicians can increase spending but say they’re cutting spending because the budget could have grown even faster.

What really matters is how much money government is spending this year compared to how much money will be spent in subsequent years. Using this common-sense benchmark, let’s look at two competing proposals.

According to the new numbers released today, Congressman Ryan’s budget plan will result in government growing, on average, by almost 2.8 percent annually over the next 10 years.

President Obama’s budget plan, by contrast, would increase the burden of government spending by an average of nearly 4.7 percent each year.

This chart compares the two budget plans. Because Chairman Ryan does not let spending grow as rapidly, cumulative spending over that period will be $6.2 billion less than it would be based on the President’s plan. That’s an impressive amount of money that taxpayers will save if Ryan is successful, but it’s not a spending cut. Not surprisingly, the big spenders in Washington are claiming that the “spending cuts” in Representative Ryan’s budget are “harsh” and “extreme.” But Ryan’s proposal would allow the budget to grow faster than inflation, which is projected to average less than 2.1 percent annually over the 10-year period.

Good fiscal policy is very simple. Restrain the size and scope of government so that outlays grow slower than the private sector. If that happens, the burden of federal spending will shrink as a share of economic output

That’s exactly what happens with Ryan’s plan. By 2018, the federal budget will drop to less than 20 percent of GDP. That still doesn’t bring us back to where we were at the end of the fiscally responsible Clinton years, when federal spending consumed only 18.2 percent of GDP. But after a 10-year spending binge under Bush and Obama, Congressman Ryan’s plan would move America back toward fiscal responsibility.

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/04 ... ner=alerts

[Svartalf]

They'll have to close the prisons. Can't wait to see the result?

they'll close schools and hospitals before they close a prison

Which is a shame since much more public money is wasted in the prison industrial complex than in medicine or education... I'm waiting for a poor vs rich civil war.

[Coito ergo sum]

“We’re on a debt crisis path. We are on a path where the government goes from 20 percent of GDP, to 40 percent then 60 percent of GDP. We’re on a path where our debt goes from about 68 percent of GDP to 800 percent of GDP over the three-generation window,” Ryan said.
“I asked CBO to run the model going out and they told me that their computer simulation crashes in 2037 because CBO can’t conceive of any way in which the economy can continue past the year 2037 because of debt burdens,” said Ryan.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rep-rya ... do-nothing

[Warren Dew]

The difference in the budget may not look that huge, but the effect on the debt is significant:

[Coito ergo sum]

Do the Democrats not think that increasing debt is a problem?

I don't get why they are resisting this...

[Atheist-Lite]

A plague will cure the debt.

[Warren Dew]

Do the Democrats not think that increasing debt is a problem?

It's unclear. I don't think Pelosi thinks it's a problem; she'd be happy with a collapse of our free market system, apparently even if the result is an unholy alliance of big business and socialist government that's more fascist than the pure socialism she'd probably prefer.

I think Obama actually may see it as a problem. He made a point of stating that the growth of entitlements was a problem even as he failed to address that growth in his 2012 budget proposal, and the White House is pointedly avoiding criticizing Ryan's budget plan. Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think Obama might actually be secretly hoping that the Ryan proposal will pass and solve that problem for him, without Obama having to take the political heat associated with solving it.

[Seth]

What dumb-fuck socialists simply are too stupid to understand is that no government on earth can afford to provide free health care for everyone for very long, because the costs of providing the entitlement soon outstrips the ability of the economy to generate sufficient wealth to pay for it, at which point the entire economy collapses. It's as inevitable as gravity.

And that doesn't even begin to address all the OTHER entitlement programs that suck the OPM from the system, which brings down the economy even faster.

Every time I point out this fact, even when I do it in great detail by describing exactly how socialism always fails, socialists, in their blindered delusion that goods and services simply drop from the heavens like manna, simply ignore the truth and change the subject, usually to a personal attack.

I sure would love to see the Marxists here explain, just once, how a Marxist system is self sustaining economically. They love to bitch about how unfair capitalism is and rant and rave about evil corporations (the ones that just happen to give them jobs), but they never, ever, not once have described how a socialist economy actually works once the wealthy have been stripped of their wealth and everybody is engaged in one-downsmanship as they attempt to do the least possible amount of work possible without getting fired.

Nobody has a "right" to health care because that implies that other people may be enslaved to the service of the individual to provide it to them at someone else's expense.

[Seth]

Do the Democrats not think that increasing debt is a problem?

I don't get why they are resisting this...

It's perfectly clear if you understand that they are not "democrats," they are Progressives, Marxists and globalists who are perfectly happy to destroy the United States and our current system of government so that they can rebuild it as the utopian Progressive administrative state and but a poor cog in the machinery of a global Progressive administrative state in which all people everywhere are enslaved to the Progressive agenda. It's purely and only about power and control and the ruling elite seizing it on a global scale. They want to run everything, everywhere, without "democratic" interference, and they are intent on driving the United States into ruin because destroying the last bastion of Republicanism and liberty is the only way they can accomplish their goal.

People like Pelosi...and the Muslims...and international socialist youth, and even Marxists are merely useful idiots who are being cynically manipulated in order to foment chaos and economic collapse.

You think it's an oligarchy now, just wait till George Soros and his ilk take over control.