Paul Ryan - Page 9 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Hatterasguy · #**121** 04-18-2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidmash

How about something a bit less drastic? I think massive cuts like that are going to be detrimental. I was thinking something along the lines of a 10% cut across the board and perhaps a 10% increase in tax revenue. Do this each year (at least the cuts) as needed until we start paying down the debt and then start leveling off. I also want to see Congress loos their benefits. They can pay for their own health and retirement and they do not get a raise unless the nation is 'making' money and paying down the debt, unemployment is shrinking and the economy is growing and then the raise will be voted on.

If were start now that's quite doable and a good idea. The smart thing to do would be a gradual phase in over 10 years, than the following 10 years we can pay the debt down to nothing.

Gradual is always less painful than sudden change, but we will only have the luxury of time so long.

Honus · #**122** 04-18-2011, 09:26 AM

Most of the media seem to have decided that their ratings and circulation are enhanced by referring to Paul Ryan as courageous and by complementing his plan for "putting everything on the table" despite the fact that his assumptions are a fantasy. So, for the time being, we will need some of the better left-wing media to fill in to explain the insanity of Ryan's plan. Here is a good example:

Quote:

Will Anyone Even Insure Seniors if Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan Passes?
Benjy Sarlin | April 15, 2011, 11:00AM

At first glance, Paul Ryan's plan to send millions of seniors into the free market with dwindling vouchers in hand might seem a boon to the private insurance industry. But would companies even want to participate?

Unlike the Affordable Care Act, which mandated that millions of young and healthy Americans purchase insurance with government subsidies, the Paul Ryan plan would instead bring the oldest, sickest, and least profitable demographic to the table. And with the CBO projecting that the average senior would be on the hook for over two-thirds of their health care costs within just 10 years of the plan's adoption -- a proportion that is projected to worsen in the long run --- the government subsidies backing them up may not bring in enough profitable customers to make things worthwhile.

"If reimbursement rates are too low to provide basic benefits, they'll tell the government, 'You do it,'" one insurance lobbyist told TPM. "I don't think they can require they lose money, they'd just pull out."...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/will-anyone-even-insure-seniors-if-paul-ryans-medicare-plan-passes.php?ref=fpa

It is discouraging to see so many commentators treating Ryan as if he is credible, but he probably overreached by trying to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs are so important to so many people, I think people will start paying attention to the flaws in Ryan's plan.

MS Fowler · #**123** 04-18-2011, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Chilcutt, I think that was his point: Huge firepower makes attack highly unlikely. The less firepower, the less deterrence. The moving target is where we place the acceptable risk and whether we can afford less. Or more. I defy anybody to make a dogmatic statement about that. There are just too many variables and science and technology move too quickly.

The political calculation is dicey. If we cut military spending too much, and a successful attack is launched, the party who cut that budget, and "allowed/ invited" that attack will suffer---correctly, or not.

dlssmith · #**124** 04-18-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 450slcguy

Yep, that's what I thought. Understandably you don't get it because you only pay a small fraction of the costs right now.

I suggest you talk to elder relatives on fixed incomes who no longer have company paid benefits. See what they have to say about Medicare vs. the cost(and availability) of private medical insurance at their age. Only then will you begin to understand what it's all about.

Perhaps it would be good idea to start taxing company paid medical as part of employment income. Maybe even do away with medical tax deductions. I'm sure that would go a long way in financing Medicare expenditures.

I am involved in buying insurance for my company, and I know very well the costs associated with health coverage. For instance, every year my company must shop for coverage and part of the equation is our claims experience. We have an older work force so the costs are rising.

Aside from my experience, I agree that company paid medical insurance needs to be considered income for employees. For too long, companies have paid and employees have consumed without really putting those two things together. There is a disconnect between payment and cost which has caused an abuse of the system. Next time you go to the doctor, ask the receptionist what the cost of the exam will be. Most likely they won't be able to tell you, because no matter who is paying, medicare or private insurance, there is some sort of magic billing manipulation going on behind the scenes, after you receive services. I have been surprised more than once when I received medical services and got a bill later for a few hundred dollars when insurance didn't cover it. Since it wasn't emergency services, I could have gone somewhere else had I known I was going to pay - I could have, gasp, shopped for the less expensive place. But when I know that insurance is going to pay, why should I care what the cost is, or what they reimburse? The answer to that one is self evident.

We don't shop for medical services in this country to our detriment and that is the fault of gov't manipulation of the market, price fixing (medicare), restrictions on the ability of insurers to write policies across state lines, tax code rules that allow businesses to deduct health care costs of employees??? Why on earth can't I deduct my own expenses, aren't they my expenses, is it my body?????

pj67coll · #**125** 04-18-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Most of the media seem to have decided that their ratings and circulation are enhanced by referring to Paul Ryan as courageous and by complementing his plan for "putting everything on the table" despite the fact that his assumptions are a fantasy. So, for the time being, we will need some of the better left-wing media to fill in to explain the insanity of Ryan's plan. Here is a good example:It is discouraging to see so many commentators treating Ryan as if he is credible, but he probably overreached by trying to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs are so important to so many people, I think people will start paying attention to the flaws in Ryan's plan.

Once again so what? That Ryan's plan is flawed is known. So instead of saying Ryan's plan is flawed, he wants to cut welfare for the aged, which is essentially what that article says, lets see the oppositions plan... One that recognises the catastrophe this country faces in the next few decades and actually tries to do something about it.

- Peter.

Honus · #**126** 04-18-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

...lets see the oppositions plan... One that recognises the catastrophe this country faces in the next few decades and actually tries to do something about it...

I think both sides should come up with plans. Ryan's so-called plan is no such thing. It's nothing but a bunch of words and numbers printed out as if it were a plan. That's why I wish the media would quit describing it as courageous.

Obama will be out selling his plan this week. Lets see whether his makes more sense than Ryan's. I'm betting that it will.

pj67coll · #**127** 04-18-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Obama will be out selling his plan this week. Lets see whether his makes more sense than Ryan's. I'm betting that it will.

Hopefully.

- Peter.

cmac2012 · #**128** 04-18-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

Most of the media seem to have decided that their ratings and circulation are enhanced by referring to Paul Ryan as courageous and by complementing his plan for "putting everything on the table" despite the fact that his assumptions are a fantasy. So, for the time being, we will need some of the better left-wing media to fill in to explain the insanity of Ryan's plan. Here is a good example:It is discouraging to see so many commentators treating Ryan as if he is credible, but he probably overreached by trying to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. Those programs are so important to so many people, I think people will start paying attention to the flaws in Ryan's plan.

Newsweek harshed on him pretty hard this week:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/10/war-on-the-weak.html

Last week the Republican Party sounded two distinct voices. First we heard the angry demands of the Tea Party, speaking through its hardline conservative allies in the House, pushing the government to the brink of a shutdown. But then emerged the soothing tones of Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, who fashions himself the intellectual leader of the party, unveiling a budget manifesto he calls the “Path to Prosperity.”

Ryan portrays his goals in reassuringly pecuniary terms—he’s just the friendly neighborhood accountant here to help balance your checkbook. “I have a knack for numbers,” he chirps. ABC News compared him to a character in Dave, the corny 1993 movie about an average Joe who mistakenly assumes the presidency and calls in his CPA buddy—that would be Ryan—to scour the federal budget and bring it into balance. If he has any flaw, he just cares too much about rescuing the country from debt, gosh darn it!

732002 · #**129** 04-18-2011, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Once again so what? That Ryan's plan is flawed is known. So instead of saying Ryan's plan is flawed, he wants to cut welfare for the aged, which is essentially what that article says, lets see the oppositions plan... One that recognises the catastrophe this country faces in the next few decades and actually tries to do something about it.

- Peter.

The oppositions plan was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, on the top bracket, raising those rates 4% from 35%

The top marginal tax bracket is 35%, this is the lowest in many decades.
Part of the deficit problem is that we have become addicted to lower and lower taxes.

Botnst · #**130** 04-18-2011, 08:02 PM

It's not a tax problem. It's a spend problem. And no, it didn't begin with Obama. The wise use of federal spending and deficits ended with Kennedy.

LBJ thought that he could have a little war that nobody would notice AND spend money like FDR. Nixon loved it and expanded it. Ford tried to pay for it by cranking-up the printing presses. Jimmy Carter thought Ford's plan was topnotch and got superchargers for the presses. Reagan thought he could spend like nobody's business and that Congress would do the right think, which it didn't. Bush I said yes. Clinton, against his wishes, was forced into the first balanced budget and budget surplus since Kennedy. Bush had Johnson envy. Obama had Bush envy.

And here we are today. with Democrats trying to spend money like drunken Republicans at a convention.

Cut spending. Remove all tax deductions. Then let's see where we are.

MS Fowler · #**131** 04-18-2011, 09:09 PM

Some of us have been consistent on this over spending. My criticisms of Bush and the repubs for their over spending are well documented on these pages.

I guess that puts me well ahead of the democrat partisans who spoke so pompously about the dangers of raising the debt ceiling and over spending. One one vote that I agreed with Sen Obama, and now he disavows it.

Debt is not a partisan issue. It will destroy all of us of either ( or no) political party.
We are borrowing over 40% of what we spend. Does ANYONE believe this is sustainable.

We need to STOP. and make hard choices, NOW.

#**132** 04-18-2011, 09:18 PM

Yup, spending needs to be reduced across the board, and taxes need to be increased until the debt reaches a manageable level. It does not require anything dramatic, just a sustained effort over a couple of decades to bring revenue and spending into alignment. All the current screaming is pointless; the sky is not falling. The debt has been high before, and it will be high again. It's about time to start making some adjustment and turn the corner.

732002 · #**133** 04-19-2011, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

It's not a tax problem. It's a spend problem. And no, it didn't begin with Obama. The wise use of federal spending and deficits ended with Kennedy.

LBJ thought that he could have a little war that nobody would notice AND spend money like FDR. Nixon loved it and expanded it. Ford tried to pay for it by cranking-up the printing presses. Jimmy Carter thought Ford's plan was topnotch and got superchargers for the presses. Reagan thought he could spend like nobody's business and that Congress would do the right think, which it didn't. Bush I said yes. Clinton, against his wishes, was forced into the first balanced budget and budget surplus since Kennedy. Bush had Johnson envy. Obama had Bush envy.

And here we are today. with Democrats trying to spend money like drunken Republicans at a convention.

Cut spending. Remove all tax deductions. Then let's see where we are.

It is also a tax problem, during all those administrations the tax rates were going down. The top marginal rate is now 35% When was the last time it was that low?

jdc1244 · #**134** 04-19-2011, 12:08 AM

Quote:

How about something a bit less drastic? I think massive cuts like that are going to be detrimental. I was thinking something along the lines of a 10% cut across the board and perhaps a 10% increase in tax revenue. Do this each year (at least the cuts) as needed until we start paying down the debt and then start leveling off. I also want to see Congress loos their benefits. They can pay for their own health and retirement and they do not get a raise unless the nation is 'making' money and paying down the debt, unemployment is shrinking and the economy is growing and then the raise will be voted on.

Quote:

The oppositions plan was to let the Bush tax cuts expire, on the top bracket, raising those rates 4% from 35%

The top marginal tax bracket is 35%, this is the lowest in many decades.
Part of the deficit problem is that we have become addicted to lower and lower taxes.

^ That’s the kind of clear thinking needed in Congress.

MS Fowler · #**135** 04-19-2011, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 732002

It is also a tax problem, during all those administrations the tax rates were going down. The top marginal rate is now 35% When was the last time it was that low?

Yet, consider that if we confiscated ALL the wealth of the top 10% we still would not balance the budget.
It is a spending issue.