Paul Ryan's faith - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #1 05-27-2011, 04:17 PM

There are plenty of reasons to be alarmed by Paul Ryan's so-called budget plan. Many (most?) Americans who know about his "plan" are alarmed that he wants to eliminate Medicare (although he doesn't admit that he is doing that). To me, the alarming thing about his "plan" is that the numbers are just made up. With the help of a credulous media, he threw together a bunch of preposterous economic assumptions, but the phoniness of his "plan" is barely concealed at all. I've been wondering why he thinks this is OK. Now, we have this:

Quote:

Paul Ryan’s ‘economic doctrine thing’
By Steve Benen

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) talked to NPR yesterday about the differences between the parties when it comes to the budget and deficit reduction. Reader R.L. flagged this exchange as especially noteworthy.

NPR: As you look forward, if you’re going to reach an agreement with the Democrats that raises debt ceilings, avoids calamity, is there ultimately some room that you can imagine, for — from your standpoint — at least some nominal tax increase that gives the possibility for both sides to walk into a room and come out of a room and say, we got some of what we wanted here? Or is that absolutely…

RYAN: I don’t, yeah, I don’t see it. And let me explain why, and this isn’t a political thing. It’s an economic belief. It’s an economic doctrine thing.

And here I was concerned that congressional Republicans weren’t approaching fiscal policy with enough seriousness, depth of thought, or intellectual honesty. Additional revenue to close the budget gap is simply beyond the pale because Paul Ryan has “an economic doctrine thing”?

Well, then, why didn’t he just say so?

Of course, the right-wing Wisconsinite doesn’t have — or at least can’t point to — any substance to bolster this approach. For Ryan, whose numbers never seem to add up, it’s simply taken on faith. It’s about “beliefs” and “doctrines,” which make for fascinating philosophical debates, but awful policy solutions.

Perhaps we should look at this from another angle. I’d love for the House Budget Committee chairman to reconcile his “economic doctrine thing” with evidence like this from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

It’s more or less a conversation-ender. For Ryan, raising taxes necessarily means less growth and fewer jobs, while lowering taxes necessarily means stronger growth and more jobs. But “doctrine things” notwithstanding, we already know Paul Ryan is wrong, because we’ve already seen evidence that disproves his “economic beliefs.”

In the 1990s, a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending led to a strong economy and the complete elimination of the deficit. And it’s not the only example — as Reagan’s former budget director recently explained, Ronaldus Magnus raised taxes quite a bit in 1982, and the economy flourished soon after.

Jared Bernstein recently lamented the rise of the “NASTIE’s (Never-A-Stinkin’-Tax-Increase-Ever!),” all of whom are convinced that “any increase in tax rates will do irreparable harm to the economy.” As Bernstein documented very clearly, the “NASTIE’s” are, of course, completely wrong.

Paul Ryan’s “economic doctrine thing” is just nonsense.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_05/paul_ryans_economic_doctrine_t029872.php

And yet the media treat him as if he is "serious."

MS Fowler · #2 05-27-2011, 05:00 PM

And you treat that blog as "serious"

compress ignite · #3 05-27-2011, 05:14 PM

Herr Ryan has taken a 1,000 MCM cable and made a direct connection to any
Bagger/Birther/Republican candidates and the Fourth Rail of American Politics.
[Medicare/Medicaid]
For the Forsee-able future.(Far beyond 2012)

Honus · #4 05-27-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

And you treat that blog as "serious"

Well, in fact I do, but it wasn't the blog that put those words in Ryan's mouth.

I have asked you more than once how you can defend Ryan's use of bogus assumptions. So far, you haven't offered anything.

Botnst · #5 05-27-2011, 07:27 PM

I'd like to see SOMEBODY figure out a way to make the current system work, which it doesn't presently as it is on a unrecoverable dive unless we pull out of it.

Good for Ryan to propose something.

Not what you like? Fine with me.

Propose a fix that doesn't cost me more money or GTF out of here.

SwampYankee · #6 05-27-2011, 07:55 PM

While in no way, shape or form am I defending Ryan, I think there are a lot of bogus assumptions made in every proposal.

CT's new Gov included $2 billion in union concessions in his budget before even stepping up to the negotiating table (Constitutionally required to have a balanced budget). All in the name of "shared sacrifice." While still not ratified by the rank and file, that number has dropped to a little over $1 billion after negotiating, and there's no guarantee they'll vote for the concessions. And many of the "cuts" aren't cuts at all, they're decreases in increases.

It also counted on a large increase in revenue thanks to a new sales tax on all Internet sales into CT. While some companies will just avoid collecting as long as they can tie the fight up or avoid the CT tax man/woman, Overstock.com has cancelled all CT targeted advertising and has stopped sales to CT. While it is probably short sighted on O.com's part, it brings into question those budgeted revenue increases. I think it would be pretty safe to say that the tax revenue increase won't reach their budgeted levels.

And while he's expecting state employees to give up $1-2 trillion in contractually negotiated benefits because we are in such dire financial straights, we will spend a budgeted $597 million on a dedicated busway from New Britain to Hartford (two problems: we all know what good estimated contruction costs are and there's no study whatsoever that suggest there would be anywhere near the ridership to pay for it). We've accepted the "Amtrak money" to upgrade the tracks for high speed rail (see previous problems then add population density, high number of road crossings and low speed areas preventing the trains from ever achieving their speeds within our border. And last, but not least, a built in $1 billion "emergency" cushion to use as they see fit.

I know I'm comparing state level vs. federal level, but the games played are the same. You just add a bunch of zeroes to get the federal numbers.

Members of both parties use numerous assumptions, accounting gimicks or downright WAGs, to reach the number they want to arrive at.

#7 05-27-2011, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Propose a fix that doesn't cost me more money ....

That's not going to happen; it will cost more money.

Chas H · #8 05-27-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That's not going to happen; it will cost more money.

That's pretty much the bottom line. But we pay way too much for our healthcare. We should start with the cost of prescription drugs and stop subsidizing the medical plans of the rest of the world.

Botnst · #9 05-27-2011, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

That's not going to happen; it will cost more money.

I disagree. I believe that scaling back expectations of medicare is one viable alternative.

In my opinion we should return to Medicare as a system for providing basic health care to poor people. The rest of us should pay our own ways. We can afford that.

daveuz · #10 05-27-2011, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I disagree. I believe that scaling back expectations of medicare is one viable alternative.

In my opinion we should return to Medicare as a system for providing basic health care to poor people. The rest of us should pay our own ways. We can afford that.

But wouldn't you in fact be paying more with that plan?

compress ignite · #11 05-27-2011, 10:42 PM

Botnst,

Two Words for you, Socialized Medicine.

We in the U.S. pay three times more than anyone else on the Planet for Healthcare,for 1/2 the Care!!!

The only Entities doing well (Getting Filthy Rich) in CONUS Today under the Current "System" are:
Drug Manufacturers
Health (Death ) Insurers
members of the A.M.A.

Screw ALL THREE GROUPS!

Nationalize Health care!!!

That Solution won't cost you anything!
(You'll actually SAVE Thousands of Dollars a Year,Personally)

Honus · #12 05-27-2011, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Good for Ryan to propose something...

I am truly mystified by that commonly held view. Ryan has proposed a so-called "plan" that will only work if the following 4 things occur:

1. Unemployment must drop by 2.5% within a year of the enactment of Ryan's "plan."

2. Unemployment must drop to 2.8% by 2020 (an historically low number and about 1/2 what many economists believe is the level we need to avoid inflation).

3. Revenue must dramatically increase despite a reduction in taxes.

4. The housing market needs to boom again, and soon.

There is nothing in the history of the world that suggests that anything remotely like any of those things will happen.

The Heritage Foundation embarrassed itself by supporting Ryan's plan when it came out. When people asked why they were publishing such a ridiculous unemployment projection, they tried to delete the offending figure from their website. Unfortunately for Heritage, Krugman had downloaded their original attempt to bolster Ryan. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/memory-hole-alert/

So, seriously, how can you say "Good for Ryan"? I don't get it.

#13 05-27-2011, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I disagree. I believe that scaling back expectations of medicare is one viable alternative.

In my opinion we should return to Medicare as a system for providing basic health care to poor people. The rest of us should pay our own ways. We can afford that.

I wasn't talking about what "should" happen, I was talking about what will happen. We will pay more.

Health insurance is getting fairly expensive, I'm currently paying a little over $2000 per month for a pretty good family plan.