Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Eloquent criticism of the Ryan plan
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:49 AM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:"Cutting government investments in education and infrastructure and basic science is not a growth strategy. Cutting deeply into the safety net for low-income Americans is not financially necessary and cannot plausibly help strengthen economic growth. Repealing Wall Street Reform will not make the economy grow faster—it would just make us more vulnerable to another crisis. This strategy is a recipe to make us a declining power—a less exceptional nation. It is a dark and pessimistic vision of America."
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:53 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Note that Ryan has said he supports closing various tax breaks and loopholes in order to offset some of the costs of his tax cuts. Those changes aren’t included here because, as of yet, he hasn’t said what they will be. Here's where his cuts fall: from the poor, give to the rich". Need we say more? Thanx for the link, I'm going to read it right away. eanwhile:Quote:The occasion was an October speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Again, Ryan really leaned into the historic moment. His remarks were titled “Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division,” and they were Ryan’s bid to make a different sort of history: to be the first national Republican to lay out a coherent theory on income inequality and what needs to be done about it. “Class is not a fixed designation in this country,” Ryan said. “We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups. The Treasury Department’s latest study on income mobility in America found that during the 10-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher income group by 2005.” Upward mobility, Ryan said, is the real key to the “American idea.” And it didn’t end there. Two weeks later, in a 15-page report entitled “A Deeper Look at Income Inequality,” Ryan made his argument again — but this time with more charts. Ryan went on to endorse the “the growing bipartisan consensus to target corporate welfare, to income-adjust entitlement programs and to reform the tax code by removing loopholes and lowering barriers to growth.” Ryan’s presentation was persuasive. And he was more convincing because he seemed to admit a hard truth that Republicans often deny: that government programs for the poor are a crucial way of ensuring income mobility, and as they get squeezed, so, too, do the life chances of those born at the base of the income ladder. But it is difficult to believe that Ryan’s budget was written by the same guy who wrote this paper. Because in Ryan’s budget, Social Security is untouched. The cuts to Medicaid and other health programs for the poor are twice the size of those to Medicare. The cuts to education, to food stamps, to transportation infrastructure and to pretty much everything else besides defense are draconian. As for the tax reform component, it cuts taxes on millionaires by more than $250,000, but it doesn’t name a single loophole or tax break that Ryan and the Republicans would close. In the end, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 62 percent of the cuts come from programs for low-income Americans and 37 percent of the tax benefits go to the few Americans earning more than $1 million. other words, Ryan’s budget fails even Ryan’s tests for encouraging social mobility: It focuses its cuts on programs for the poor rather than programs for seniors, and it doesn’t eliminate any tax loopholes. (Ryan’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on this piece.) As Ryan argued in his October speech, the government does have a role in encouraging social mobility: It helps close the gap between the children of the poor and the children of the rich. Food stamps and other food-assistance programs help with nutrition. Public education and Pell grants help with skills. Medicaid — which covers more than 25 million children — helps with access to health care. But Ryan’s proposed cuts would hit these programs with particular force. “Ryan’s plan is a privatization of the prerequisites for opportunity,” says Jacob Hacker, author of “Winner-Take-All Politics.” “And so they become the province of people whose parents have made it.” Bob Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, points to Ryan’s cuts to education: “Lower-income students are more likely to go to public universities and community colleges. But lately, state budget cuts are leading to tuition increases. The Ryan budget would further decimate state budgets, because one of the areas of the budget he hits the hardest is ‘non-security discretionary spending,’ of which 35 to 40 percent of that category is aid to cities and state governments. Normally, you would increase Pell grants to help with this. But he’s slashing Pell grants, too!” To put it slightly differently, no millionaire’s child will find that Ryan’s budget ends her hopes of a college education. But plenty of lower-income children will. And in the long run, that’s bad for mobility, bad for growth and bad for the country. “If you don’t have a society that allows non-elites to have a serious shot of sharing in economic prosperity, there’s a huge untapped potential for economic growth,” Hacker says. Five months ago, Ryan knew that. He condemned “empty promises that betray the powerless” and praised “the American idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line.” But it is hard to see his budget as anything less than a betrayal of the powerless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryan-betrays-his-own-views-on-income-inequality/2012/04/03/gIQAJCv2sS_blog.html were we talking about politicians lying?
Quote:The occasion was an October speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Again, Ryan really leaned into the historic moment. His remarks were titled “Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division,” and they were Ryan’s bid to make a different sort of history: to be the first national Republican to lay out a coherent theory on income inequality and what needs to be done about it. “Class is not a fixed designation in this country,” Ryan said. “We are an upwardly mobile society with a lot of movement between income groups. The Treasury Department’s latest study on income mobility in America found that during the 10-year period starting in 1996, roughly half of the taxpayers who started in the bottom 20 percent had moved up to a higher income group by 2005.” Upward mobility, Ryan said, is the real key to the “American idea.” And it didn’t end there. Two weeks later, in a 15-page report entitled “A Deeper Look at Income Inequality,” Ryan made his argument again — but this time with more charts. Ryan went on to endorse the “the growing bipartisan consensus to target corporate welfare, to income-adjust entitlement programs and to reform the tax code by removing loopholes and lowering barriers to growth.” Ryan’s presentation was persuasive. And he was more convincing because he seemed to admit a hard truth that Republicans often deny: that government programs for the poor are a crucial way of ensuring income mobility, and as they get squeezed, so, too, do the life chances of those born at the base of the income ladder. But it is difficult to believe that Ryan’s budget was written by the same guy who wrote this paper. Because in Ryan’s budget, Social Security is untouched. The cuts to Medicaid and other health programs for the poor are twice the size of those to Medicare. The cuts to education, to food stamps, to transportation infrastructure and to pretty much everything else besides defense are draconian. As for the tax reform component, it cuts taxes on millionaires by more than $250,000, but it doesn’t name a single loophole or tax break that Ryan and the Republicans would close. In the end, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that 62 percent of the cuts come from programs for low-income Americans and 37 percent of the tax benefits go to the few Americans earning more than $1 million. other words, Ryan’s budget fails even Ryan’s tests for encouraging social mobility: It focuses its cuts on programs for the poor rather than programs for seniors, and it doesn’t eliminate any tax loopholes. (Ryan’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment on this piece.) As Ryan argued in his October speech, the government does have a role in encouraging social mobility: It helps close the gap between the children of the poor and the children of the rich. Food stamps and other food-assistance programs help with nutrition. Public education and Pell grants help with skills. Medicaid — which covers more than 25 million children — helps with access to health care. But Ryan’s proposed cuts would hit these programs with particular force. “Ryan’s plan is a privatization of the prerequisites for opportunity,” says Jacob Hacker, author of “Winner-Take-All Politics.” “And so they become the province of people whose parents have made it.” Bob Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, points to Ryan’s cuts to education: “Lower-income students are more likely to go to public universities and community colleges. But lately, state budget cuts are leading to tuition increases. The Ryan budget would further decimate state budgets, because one of the areas of the budget he hits the hardest is ‘non-security discretionary spending,’ of which 35 to 40 percent of that category is aid to cities and state governments. Normally, you would increase Pell grants to help with this. But he’s slashing Pell grants, too!” To put it slightly differently, no millionaire’s child will find that Ryan’s budget ends her hopes of a college education. But plenty of lower-income children will. And in the long run, that’s bad for mobility, bad for growth and bad for the country. “If you don’t have a society that allows non-elites to have a serious shot of sharing in economic prosperity, there’s a huge untapped potential for economic growth,” Hacker says. Five months ago, Ryan knew that. He condemned “empty promises that betray the powerless” and praised “the American idea that justice is done when we level the playing field at the starting line.” But it is hard to see his budget as anything less than a betrayal of the powerless. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryan-betrays-his-own-views-on-income-inequality/2012/04/03/gIQAJCv2sS_blog.html were we talking about politicians lying?
Thursday, April 5, 2012 7:54 AM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Not from Obama, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: Quote:"Cutting government investments in education and infrastructure and basic science is not a growth strategy. Cutting deeply into the safety net for low-income Americans is not financially necessary and cannot plausibly help strengthen economic growth. Repealing Wall Street Reform will not make the economy grow faster—it would just make us more vulnerable to another crisis. This strategy is a recipe to make us a declining power—a less exceptional nation. It is a dark and pessimistic vision of America." I like Geithner. You can read the whole address here: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/tg1522.aspx] I thought President Obama's rebuttal of Ryan's plan was pretty eloquent, too. Quote:Obama poked fun at Romney for describing the budget as "marvelous — which is a word you don't often hear about budgets," he said, pausing to grin as the crowd of newspaper publishers and editors chuckled: "That's a word you don't often hear generally," Obama added, before launching into a point-by-point rebuttal of the budgdet, "so here's what this marvelous budget does." Obama said the budget "makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal," quoting former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling the first iteration of the plan "right wing social engineering." "It's A trojan horse disguised as a deficit reduction plan," Obama said, warning of cuts to entitlement programs and other areas of government spending. "Reagan could not get through a Republican primary today," he added during the question and answer session, saying he would have been disqualified because he supported some tax increases. http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/obama-mentions-romney-makes-fun-of-him-for-callin
Quote:Obama poked fun at Romney for describing the budget as "marvelous — which is a word you don't often hear about budgets," he said, pausing to grin as the crowd of newspaper publishers and editors chuckled: "That's a word you don't often hear generally," Obama added, before launching into a point-by-point rebuttal of the budgdet, "so here's what this marvelous budget does." Obama said the budget "makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal," quoting former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich calling the first iteration of the plan "right wing social engineering." "It's A trojan horse disguised as a deficit reduction plan," Obama said, warning of cuts to entitlement programs and other areas of government spending. "Reagan could not get through a Republican primary today," he added during the question and answer session, saying he would have been disqualified because he supported some tax increases.
Friday, April 6, 2012 2:58 PM
Quote:Ryan in Two Numbers Last year, when Paul Ryan first made a big splash with his budget proposal, many commentators — some of them pretending to be moderates or at any rate only moderate conservatives — lavished praise on its fiscal responsibility. Then people who actually know how to read budget numbers weighed in, revealing it as a piece of mean-spirited junk. Now, on round two, the nature of the discussion has changed; instead of hearing about how wonderful Ryan is, we’re hearing about what a big meanie Obama is for saying nasty things about Ryan’s plan — a plan that is “imperfect” and maybe cuts a bit, but not really that bad. Except that it really is that bad. I could do this in detail, but you can learn everything you need to know by understanding two numbers: $4.6 trillion and 14 million. Of these, $4.6 trillion is the size of the mystery meat in the budget. Ryan proposes tax cuts that would cost $4.6 trillion over the next decade relative to current policy — that is, relative even to making the Bush tax cuts permanent — but claims that his plan is revenue neutral, because he would make up the revenue loss by closing loopholes. For example, he would … well, actually, he refuses to name a single example of a loophole he wants to close. So the budget is a fraud. No, it’s not “imperfect”, it’s not a bit shaky on the numbers; it’s completely based on almost $5 trillion dollars of alleged revenue that are pure fabrication. On the other side, 14 million is the minimum number of people who would lose health insurance due to Medicaid cuts — the Urban Institute, working off the very similar plan Ryan unveiled last year, puts it at between 14 and 27 million people losing Medicaid. That’s a lot of people — and a lot of suffering. And again, bear in mind that none of this would be done to reduce the deficit — it would be done to make room for those $4.6 trillion in tax cuts, and in particular a tax cut of $240,000 a year to the average member of the one percent.. But Obama is very rude for pointing any of this out.
Saturday, April 7, 2012 2:17 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Not from Obama, but Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner: Quote:"Cutting government investments in education and infrastructure and basic science is not a growth strategy. Cutting deeply into the safety net for low-income Americans is not financially necessary and cannot plausibly help strengthen economic growth. Repealing Wall Street Reform will not make the economy grow faster—it would just make us more vulnerable to another crisis.
Quote:"Cutting government investments in education and infrastructure and basic science is not a growth strategy. Cutting deeply into the safety net for low-income Americans is not financially necessary and cannot plausibly help strengthen economic growth. Repealing Wall Street Reform will not make the economy grow faster—it would just make us more vulnerable to another crisis.
Saturday, April 7, 2012 2:44 AM
Quote:Ryan's plan is the most coherent, sober and realistic look to the future.
Saturday, April 7, 2012 9:52 AM
Saturday, April 7, 2012 12:44 PM
Quote:Originally posted by kpo: Quote:Ryan's plan is the most coherent, sober and realistic look to the future. Hmm. How do you answer Krugman's criticisms (above) of the Ryan plan? It's not personal. It's just war.
Sunday, April 8, 2012 1:14 PM
Quote:The Tax Policy Center, which is nonpartisan and widely respected, tried to analyze the impact of the tax changes Mr. Ryan proposed. He would get rid of the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax. He would cut corporate taxes by seeking to tax only earnings made in the United States. He would repeal assorted other taxes. And he would cut the top individual tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent. Mr. Williams said that, compared with current law, it appeared that over 10 years the Ryan plan would cost the government about $10 trillion before considering the unspecified loopholes he would eliminate.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL