Speaker ...

That hypocrisy critique on Ryan is a huge stretch. I'm pretty sure that he's never said that we don't need a legislative branch of government. If he said that then yes he'd be a hypocrite. I'm pretty sure that he supports the idea of legislating.
 
BedellBrave said:
Those words are just representative of your m.o. It is what it is. Sorry.
Click to expand...

In the past two days you have:

Said I can't call people "Baby killers" any longer

and said I refer to or see people I disagree with as "idiot devils"

"representative of your m.o. "

wow
 
weso1 said:
That hypocrisy critique on Ryan is a huge stretch. I'm pretty sure that he's never said that we don't need a legislative branch of government. If he said that then yes he'd be a hypocrite. I'm pretty sure that he supports the idea of legislating.
Click to expand...

It's kinda not. The guy who gave us "makers and takers" has never made anything in his life. Actually, his family's money came from . . . Federal highway contracts. He's going to do a few years in the Speaker's chair, then retire, hit the lecture circuit and cash six-figure checks for "consulting." That is the stuff of which small-government conservative dreams are made, huh?
 
Instead of telling us about how much Ryan knows about the budget… how about telling us what Ryan says about the budget?

http://billmoyers.com/2015/10/22/paul-ryan-wants-to-shut-down-the-government-permanently/

This fact is one that is easy to find if a reporter is willing to do five minutes of research. Ryan directed the Congressional Budget Office to score his budget plans back in 2012. The score of his plan showed the non-Social Security, non-Medicare portion of the federal budget shrinking to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2050 (page 16).

This number is roughly equal to current spending on the military. Ryan has indicated that he does not want to see the military budget cut to any substantial degree. That leaves no money for the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, The Justice Department, infrastructure spending or anything else. Following Ryan’s plan, in 35 years we would have nothing left over after paying for the military.

Just to be clear, this was not some offhanded gaffe where Ryan might have misspoke. He supervised the CBO analysis. CBO doesn’t write down numbers in a dark corner and then throw them up on their website to embarrass powerful members of Congress. As the document makes clear, they consulted with Ryan in writing the analysis to make sure that they were accurately capturing his program.
 
Handily ?

He was the best - bad option in (R) eyes. By all accounts.
And still wasn't unanimous . In races for House leadership, that is being told you're on a short leach
 
Oklahomahawk said:
I'll add this article to the mix. I'm sure sturg will appreciate it even if noone else does.
Click to expand...

Thank OK. I did my graduate thesis on tax reform (back in the mid-1980s). It's really funny that when I re-read my paper last year, the only thing that has really changed is the magnitude of the overall numbers because of growth in the economy and the budget (not so much in real terms, but basically through inflation). Unless you are going to cut everyone's taxes with no eye at all on the effects on the deficit, there is really no way to simplify the system without shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another and all of the Republican plans being discussed cut the tax burden on wealthier Americans by a larger percentage than taxpayers at the lower end of the income spectrum. And before a bunch of folks come in and start saying we can cut taxes and cut the budget to accommodate the tax cuts. The only way you can really do that is to cut the living daylights out of the defense budget.
 
50PoundHead said:
Thank OK. I did my graduate thesis on tax reform (back in the mid-1980s). It's really funny that when I re-read my paper last year, the only thing that has really changed is the magnitude of the overall numbers because of growth in the economy and the budget (not so much in real terms, but basically through inflation). Unless you are going to cut everyone's taxes with no eye at all on the effects on the deficit, there is really no way to simplify the system without shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another and all of the Republican plans being discussed cut the tax burden on wealthier Americans by a larger percentage than taxpayers at the lower end of the income spectrum. And before a bunch of folks come in and start saying we can cut taxes and cut the budget to accommodate the tax cuts. The only way you can really do that is to cut the living daylights out of the defense budget.
Click to expand...

So you did your graduate thesis when you were in Junior High (the 1980's)? ;) That would put you in your mid-late 30's, right?

Yeah I think the bottom line we're all screwed is because pretty much all sides of this argument have some validity to their point of view but just about everybody wants to take it to their side/party's extreme. Noone in Washington wants to NOT get reelected so they only want to cut the spending for those who aren't in their constituency. I don't doubt that nothing much has changed since you did that paper, not much has changed in a good way in a lot longer than that. If you look back at when this country was doing well and had a thriving middle class the wealthy were being taxed at a much higher rate than now, of course there were a lot more loopholes back then too but the bottom line is that for any economic system to work there has to be incentive for everyone and you don't get that with a wealth distribution skewed like ours is now. And this is never going to get fixed because nobody wants to give up anything, just like when the Repubs and Dems were supposedly negotiating over the ACA when it was being put together. All they could agree on was that MY side ain't giving up anything, it's YOUR side that has to give. Democracy doesn't work like that and if anyone out there really wants to know a couple of time periods that look just like ours does now, I'd suggest 1859 and 1788
 
BedellBrave said:
And will such taxes be sufficient for the program expansions that those very same Ds are promising? Please tell me you don't think the Ds are fiscally responsible.
Click to expand...

If there is a Repub president they are. We talk all the time about how the two parties really are basically the same in how they go about stuff. Remember when W was president and the Repubs were spending all over the place and the Dems called them on it as fiscally UNresponsible? And they were right to do so. Then the Dems took over and spent all over the place and the Repubs called them on it and they were right to do so. The only difference is some of what it gets spent on. At least that's how I see it. I know some see it otherwise.

By the way, do you really think if the Repubs take over their special interest spending, corporate welfare, etc., will stop or will they just call it by another name?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top