We're doing it, POLITICS style

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:04:39

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Because he's right, so telling him he's wrong would be a waste of your time.

That Ryan is some type of groundbreaking thinker when it comes to social welfare programs? Please.

He's managed to get House Republicans to support a pretty substantial overhaul of Medicare to make sure its costs don't suffocate future budgets, and gotten large pieces of his plan adopted by a guy who has a pretty decent shot at being the next president of the United States.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:05:55

Werthless wrote:Obama now trading at 61.5% on Intrade, down 1.8% today. 1.7 million shares traded.

And last night the idea that the debate was basically a draw was mocked here.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:06:45

TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote:fix them by getting rid of them.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Most (not all) conservatives recognize the value of social programs, Ryan included. What they also recognize is that by the nature of entitlement programs, the pool of persons who collect expands. That was kinda OK while the pool of new payors expanded too. Even Democrats know it's unsustainable, but are content to kick the can down the road. It would be so much easier to fix it now than to wait for the crisis.

a conservative has never promoted a social program without anything in it for private business. liberals have created all of these programs which have helped the poor, middle class and elderly extend and benefit their lives. 'reforming' them is just another word for destroying them. that's all there is to it. at this point, it's pretty much the last stand before the DC bubble runs buck wild in ruining the most successful domestic programs we've ever had.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:07:17

jerseyhoya wrote:
RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Because he's right, so telling him he's wrong would be a waste of your time.

That Ryan is some type of groundbreaking thinker when it comes to social welfare programs? Please.

He's managed to get House Republicans to support a pretty substantial overhaul of Medicare to make sure its costs don't suffocate future budgets, and gotten large pieces of his plan adopted by a guy who has a pretty decent shot at being the next president of the United States.

medicare doesnt affect the budget. neither does social security. both are currently in the black.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:12:59

welp, there goes that

Repealing all itemized deductions in the U.S. tax code would pay for only a 4 percent cut in income tax rates, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress that casts doubt on Republicans’ ability to finance lower income-tax rates with base broadening.

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows the arithmetical difficulty of an approach that assumes long-favored tax breaks such as deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions could be repealed instantly and completely. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent income-tax cut and says he would pay for it by limiting tax deductions, credits and exemptions.

by **td11** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:20:49

jerseyhoya wrote:
Werthless wrote:Obama now trading at 61.5% on Intrade, down 1.8% today. 1.7 million shares traded.

And last night the idea that the debate was basically a draw was mocked here.

it's cute when you guys suck each other's dicks

by **TomatoPie** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:27:11

pacino wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote:fix them by getting rid of them.

Not sure where you got that idea.

Most (not all) conservatives recognize the value of social programs, Ryan included. What they also recognize is that by the nature of entitlement programs, the pool of persons who collect expands. That was kinda OK while the pool of new payors expanded too. Even Democrats know it's unsustainable, but are content to kick the can down the road. It would be so much easier to fix it now than to wait for the crisis.

a conservative has never promoted a social program without anything in it for private business. liberals have created all of these programs which have helped the poor, middle class and elderly extend and benefit their lives. 'reforming' them is just another word for destroying them. that's all there is to it. at this point, it's pretty much the last stand before the DC bubble runs buck wild in ruining the most successful domestic programs we've ever had.

The purpose of conservatives is to keep these programs in check. Promotion is not needed; restraint it. We've shown none.

by **drsmooth** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:35:54

jerseyhoya wrote:Because he's right, so telling him he's wrong would be a waste of your time.

he's right that they need fixing, which everyone knows. His - and Mitt's - fixes aren't fixes.

TomatoPie wrote: Ryan, the new kid, needed to show he was serious and well informed. He executed well on that count.

if you sincerely believe this I would never allow you to participate in making hiring decisions regarding anyone for any job at any level. Because if you sincerely believe this, you're not qualified to do that job.

TomatoPie wrote:Ryan, one of very few pols to confront the math that we cannot continue on the current entitlement path

Nonsense. Most pols realize the math problem. Few - if there are any - have well-conceived ideas about what to do about changing paths. Ryan is not one of them. That may be why he "did not strongly enough make the case that fixing social programs is preferable to running them into ruin."

TomatoPie wrote:
pacino wrote:fix them by getting rid of them.

....What they also recognize is that by the nature of entitlement programs, the pool of persons who collect expands.

What about "the nature" of entitlement programs causes this? Because I am not sure you can produce evidence that their "nature" inevitably leads to expansion. That is, this is a belief of yours, not some natural law. You can as easily say its in the "nature" of democracies to produce the same results.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:46:49

pacino wrote:welp, there goes that
Repealing all itemized deductions in the U.S. tax code would pay for only a 4 percent cut in income tax rates, according to an estimate from the nonpartisan scorekeeper for Congress that casts doubt on Republicans’ ability to finance lower income-tax rates with base broadening.

The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation shows the arithmetical difficulty of an approach that assumes long-favored tax breaks such as deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions could be repealed instantly and completely. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney proposes a 20 percent income-tax cut and says he would pay for it by limiting tax deductions, credits and exemptions.

Did you read the article? They start from an absurd baseline - all Bush tax cuts expiring - and don't consider a number of possible deductions. Welp there goes that. Tax expenditures account for about $1.2 trillion dollars. We only raise about $1.1 trillion in federal income taxes.

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:50:13

pacino wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
RichmondPhilsFan wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Because he's right, so telling him he's wrong would be a waste of your time.

That Ryan is some type of groundbreaking thinker when it comes to social welfare programs? Please.

He's managed to get House Republicans to support a pretty substantial overhaul of Medicare to make sure its costs don't suffocate future budgets, and gotten large pieces of his plan adopted by a guy who has a pretty decent shot at being the next president of the United States.

medicare doesnt affect the budget. neither does social security. both are currently in the black.

Medicare and Social Security both affect the budget. They account for 36% of federal expenditures. It's absurd to think they don't affect the budget.

Social Security expenditures exceed the money raised by payroll taxes intended to pay for the program. The balance is made up of from the 'interest' off the Social Security 'trust fund' which is paid for out of general fund revenue. This share will continue to grow in coming years, and according to the Trustees, 21 years from now trust fund revenues will be exhausted and the tax revenue will only be sufficient to pay for 3/4 of benefits. The Disability part of the program is in even worse shape. The Medicare trust fund will be gone within the next couple decades as well and will require even more general trust fund monies to make up the difference.

The Trustees are pretty clear that these programs are putting increasing pressure on the federal budget: "The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010."

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 17:51:57

td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
Werthless wrote:Obama now trading at 61.5% on Intrade, down 1.8% today. 1.7 million shares traded.

And last night the idea that the debate was basically a draw was mocked here.

it's cute when you guys suck each other's dicks

If we didn't chime in, it would one one endless liberal circle jerk. You guys really built up quite a head of steam last night.

by **philliesphhan** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 18:59:33

TomatoPie wrote:Ryan, one of very few pols to confront the math that we cannot continue on the current entitlement path, did not strongly enough make the case that fixing social programs is preferable to running them into ruin.

Maybe cause he refuses to show the math since he knows it doesn't work. I do agree that we can't continue to give entitlements to corporations (though I know that's not what you meant).

Oh re: things "conservatives" are good at: meaningless wars. Those things sure are cheap. Ryan basically tried to start the war with Iran last night.

by **CalvinBall** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 19:19:19

How is it possible one debate swung the polls this much?

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 19:20:23

philliesphhan wrote:
TomatoPie wrote:Ryan, one of very few pols to confront the math that we cannot continue on the current entitlement path, did not strongly enough make the case that fixing social programs is preferable to running them into ruin.

Maybe cause he refuses to show the math since he knows it doesn't work. I do agree that we can't continue to give entitlements to corporations (though I know that's not what you meant).

Oh re: things "conservatives" are good at: meaningless wars. Those things sure are cheap. Ryan basically tried to start the war with Iran last night.

If you want to check out the math and rest of Ryan's plan, you can read the budget (PDF).

by **philliesphhan** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 19:22:36

You, yourself, have said on here that the math doesn't really work

by **jerseyhoya** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 19:24:39

philliesphhan wrote:You, yourself, have said on here that the math doesn't really work

TomatoPie is talking about Ryan's stuff on Medicare and Social Security (the major entitlement programs, not whatever the corporate crap is you're babbling about), parts of which Mitt has picked up.

by **pacino** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 19:45:54

2011 and 2012 had a reduction in income from the payroll tax (since the president reduced taxes), and the general fund paid $103 billion to do this (hte president paid for it!). reducing taxes and refusing to increase taxes is the cause of most of the long-term problems for all of these programs. we are simply not taxing ourselves enough.

the simplest way to make social solvent beyond 2050 is to simply raise the payroll tax for employer and employee and raise the cap. benefit reduction is unnecessary. keeping the estate tax is also vital, and perhaps should be diverted to maintaining both SS and medicare.

by doing nothing we basically just enact the republican plan for reduced benefits. so why put them into law and guarantee it when we can truly solidify these programs by raising taxes?

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 20:33:48

Social Security itself is a seperately funded entity outside of the approptiated budget. It was running a giant surplus (intentionally), which was held in the form of federal bonds. The interest paid out of the appropriated budget is the interest on the bonds that were used to pay for other stuff, like Reagan's using of the surplus in the mid 1980s to cover lost revenues from his big tax cuts for the wealthy and his increased cold war military spending.

Anyone using "fixing SS" as an issue should at least give credit to Reagan & Bush the Elder as the biggest causes of the looming clouds. It would be disingenuous not to.

by **Youseff** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 21:11:25

I am in a bit of shock how close we are to electing a member of a moronic cult that wants to increase military spending, increase our military activity in the world, provide an enormous tax cut to the rich while we sink further into debt because of wars other idiot Republicans started and has another idiot on his ticket that wants to extend "all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood" to fucking fertilized embryos. Like what a shithole country this is that any of that is acceptable.

by **Youseff** » Fri Oct 12, 2012 21:14:48

I'm not even an Obama fan, but at least he's a sandbag to the rising tide of the anti-civil rights, anti-science, anti-intellectualism, pro-plutocracy Republican tide.

Archived

We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style

Re: We're doing it, POLITICS style