Reid: Senate to hold vote on Ryan budget

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Apr 27, 2011.

  1. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #1
    Any bets on how many of the Republican Senators vote for a budget proposal that is rapidly being perceived as killing Medicare as we know it?

    Personally, I think it is a smart political move to have them vote on this. Is it possible that the Democrats have decided to play big-boy politics instead of constantly rolling over and letting the Republicans have their way?
     
  2. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #2
    If it's a political move, I wouldn't bet on the Dems. They suck at politics. They also suck at governing but have the Republicans providing them cover.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    According to the globaleconmicanalysis.blogspot.com (via Agora), the Ryan budget would have us at a $20 trillion debt level by spring of 2016 and the Obama counter-proposal would have us at that level by the first of 2015.

    IOW, nobody is really serious about solving the country's fiscal problems. Other than Ron Paul, they are afraid to try.

    "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."

    The real-world bottom line is that your living standard will continue to decline, no matter who is in the White House or in the Congress.
     
  4. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #4

    I fear we are doomed by human nature. No politician that is serious about it will ever get elected in our current society. Think about the campaign slogan: "I'm here to take your goodies!"

    We need someone that comes and says: "Sorry, but we are going to cut spending 20% and raise everyones taxes by 5% if you elect me."
     
  5. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #5
    so basically both budgets put us deeper in debt at about the same rate of speed.
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #6
    Yup, RP, you got it. When you're running trillion-dollar deficits for year after year, you don't get out of debt.

    We're around $1.6 trillion in the hole this year, and only an optimist who's drunk the government Kool-Aid would believe it would be much less next year. So, even Ryan's ten-year reduction plan doesn't come near solving the problem.

    This is what the "counter-culture" investment guys have been screaming about for several years, now. Even some of the mainstream big boys, as well. When you have CEOs of multi-billion-dollar mutual funds yelling to get out of the dollar, it's worthwhile to pay attention.

    Lordy, even I with my limited understanding began posting about various money problems, here in this forum, back around 2005. When George Soros predicted that we'd go into recession in late 2006, I became even noisier about it. As far as deficits, about the only response was, "Tax the rich!" The problem there, of course, is that the rich aren't rich enough for that to be the solution.
     
  7. R.Perez macrumors 6502

    R.Perez

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #7
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/42791257#42791257
     
  8. Rt&Dzine, Apr 27, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2011

    Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #8
    Sorry to sidetrack, but that intro commercial reminded me that tomorrow Exxon is expected to report a $10-BILLION profit in its 1st quarter.

    Last month Republicans voted unanimously to preserve the billions in federal subsidies that oil companies receive each year.


    .
     
  9. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    Therefore, it's OK to give profitable corporations handouts, but helping disadvantaged citizens is bad. OK, got it.
     
  10. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #10
    Of course it's ok to give handouts to the people who donate to your campaign. How else could you get elected?
     
  11. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #11
    The irony is that Ryan's plan, the one being attacked by liberals of every stripe as 'too aggressive' isn't nearly aggressive enough. It doesn't solve the problem. It seems like there isn't more than a handful of politicians (both of the Paul's being the most well known) actually talking about the problem in the correct scope and being 100% honest about what it will take to fix it.

    If half-measures are politically impossible, how can we not be doomed?
     
  12. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    Of course it doesn't solve the problem because it makes the problems we have worse. That's why Democrats are attacking it. It destroys social programs that not only help people, but help drive the economy. It also fails miserably in shifting a larger and larger responsibility for the cost of government to people who make less or are elderly so that more and more of taxpayer money can be doled out the the wealthy and corporate sponsors of the Republican party.

    It's transparent in its goals.

    Oh, if it were serious and really wanted to address the problem, it would raise taxes dramatically from these historic lows.
     
  13. fivepoint, Apr 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #13
    The unfortunate thing is that you and the rest of the lefties need to lie about the result of raising taxes on the rich (and the effect of such a raise) on actual tax recepits. The facts prove just the opposite. (see below)



    [​IMG]


    Join us on planet earth, Mcrain... we don't have a 'revenue' problem, we have a SPENDING problem. Here's how each has changed in the recent past... what do you notice about these charts, Mcrain?

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]


    Democrats aren't concerned about fixing the problem, about preventing financial collapse, they're just worried about 'getting theirs', or about redistributing as much wealth from the rich as possible before the money is worthless. We're on an unsustainable course, and all you can seem to do is double down on the failed redistributive policies of the past.
     
  14. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    Average people can't afford average medical costs so there has to be a priority placed on such social programs. Being preoccupied with the wealthy, you can't trust the Republican Party to accomplish this task. I agree that spending has to be reigned in including Defense spending. Now that I am a hostage, I support Medicare and Social Security, however these types of programs must be structured to remain viable.

    And I agree that the tax rates should be restored to at least those that existed under the Clinton Administration.
     
  15. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #15
    LIES!

    We have both a spending AND a revenue problem. Just because you repeat this tripe ad nauseum doesn't make it any less false.
     
  16. mcrain, Apr 28, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2011

    mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    Keep drinking the kool-aid. Hey guess what, if you hold the birth certificate under a black light, certain parts glow a different color. :rolleyes:

    The main reason we are on an unsustainable course is because our financial situation is worse, yes WORSE, than it was at the end of the "guilded age of the robber barons." Highly concentrated wealth is not good for our country or our economy. Back then, the top 100 families controlled about 60% of the wealth of the country, and the economy tanked. Today, the top 100 families have about 80% of the wealth. It's literally worse. Today is the guilded age of the robber barons!

    On top of that, the people who have all the wealth and the companies they own and control have moved jobs from this country overseas so they could make even more money. Not a good tactic for the overall economy. Something the GOP and its corporate sponsors (e.g. chamber of commerce) encourage. They literally are advocating for less US jobs. How is that good for America?

    I've shown you numerous times that revenue increases from taxation have historically been tied to economic growth, job growth and have an overall stimulative effect on the economy. At the same time, I have agreed (as have the Democrats) that spending needs to be examined and cut where we reasonably can. Can you spell military? It's easier than Pawlenty, and there is certainly a lot more substance there available for cutting.

    If you are hung up on the idea that all tax cuts are good and all tax increases are bad, then you aren't serious about the problem, and you are no more legitimate on this issue than Trump was on Obama's citizenship.
     
  17. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #17
    Even if it proves to have no increase, perhaps even a decrease in tax RECEIPTS?



    Prove it. I've proven the contrary, taxes on the top rate are a fraction of what they were in the 40's and yet... receipts are virtually unchanged outside of cyclical recession/depression trends. Weird I wonder why that is? It's almost as if the left will say anything and make up problems in order to advance their social agenda of taking as much as possible from the rich and redistributing it to the 'poor'. It's almost as if they create unsustainable programs which by definition expand upon the existing problem, ensure constant growth of the 'needy' groups, ensuring it's future unsustainability, and then claim there's a 'revenue' problem preventing the government from meeting it's promises... little does everyone know that it never could have, never would have.
     
  18. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #18
    It's obvious the two are related, and of course the GOP does not wish to discuss revenue, because it means raising taxes on their very good friends. The Republican technique to remove social programs is that they cut taxes first, and then claim we can't afford these expensive programs. Reagan blazed the path.
     
  19. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    Or, the more likely answer, and the obvious answer, is that the top, most wealthy taxpayers, are able to avoid paying the tax rate using loopholes, special rates for certain types of income, deductions, offsetting losses, off-shoring assets, and many other things.

    So, you are either proving that EVERY liberal is lying about the numbers, or very wealthy people spend millions upon millions on accountants and lawyers for a reason.

    Which do YOU think is more likely?
     
  20. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #20
    Let's say you're 100% as to the reason receipts do not go up when rates go up and down when they go down. Even if this is the reason, I'm still 100% right, and you're 100% wrong. You can't just increase the rates and expect it to help government receipts. More and more businesses will look for better opportunities over seas, etc. If you really want more revenue, build a business-friendly climate to spur economic growth. It's the only way.

    We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We're living beyond our means... the solution is to realize that the government can't take care of us from cradle to grave and that private funds are more efficient effective in the hands of individuals instead of the gigantic federal bureaucracy.
     
  21. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #21
    100% wrong? You really think you are 100% right that increasing taxes can't stimulate economic growth?

    Link 1

    It's called a debate for a reason. Reasonable people can disagree, but if you're 100% right... especially when you aren't... :rolleyes:

    We have a revenue problem in that our revenue doesn't cover our spending. Either you can reduce spending in reasonable ways that don't harm the American people (military, fraud, corporate handouts), and cover the rest with increases in revenue, or you can do what the Republicans want, and that's reduce revenue, increase giveaways to businesses and slash social spending which will end up costing us a lot more in the long run. That would destroy what's left of our economy, further reducing revenue, and giving the nuts on the right even more excuses to impose anti-democratic, big-government, intrusive legislation.

    Ahhhh, you truly believe and hope that businesses will flock back to the US if we just had 10 cent per hour wages, 16 hour work days and no regulations? What a joke. You are asking the US to compete with economies that are third-world and have governments that manipulate the heck out of their markets. How about we encourage businesses to manufacture here through government policies designed for the benefit of the American people, and not the corporate sponsors of the Republican party?
     
  22. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #22
    And now for a fascinating lesson in linguistics:


    By 'revenue' mcrain means, money taken from people who build wealth, and given to people who don't.



    Mcrain, and Mcrain alone has the definition for what programs help and which hurt the American people. Welfare helps people, but taxation above 50% doesn't hurt people? Social Security (even if it's bankrupt?) helps people but the highest corporate tax rates in the civilized world don't hurt business/jobs?

    By 'handouts' of course mcrain means government taking less money from the original owner/creator of the wealth. He works under the bass-ackwards mentality that the government OWNS the wealth, and through their kind heart and charity they may give some of it to the corporations in the form of a 'handout.' ;) How ludicrous.



    Mcrain believes that the only single alternative to his big-government, nanny state, entitlement program laden, business killing government, is one that pays 10 cents per hour and has 16 hour work days. Clearly he has zero understanding of history, zero understanding of basic free market economics, zero understanding of labor supply/demand, and zero understanding of the underlying costs associated with doing business half the way around the world different from where the consumers are.



    'encourage' means 'manipulation'. It means the government picks winners and losers, it means a few central elite in Washington know better than the wealth creators and capitalists operating in the free market. His reference to 'corporate sponsors' is laughable because there's no better friend to corporatism than today's democrat party, advocates of bailout after bailout, a no-lose-don't-worry-the-gov't-has-your-back policy where everyone is too big to fail. All this while true conservatives (not necessarily Republicans mind you) support less government in volvement, no bailouts, standing on your own two feet, bankruptcy per law, etc.
     
  23. mcrain thread starter macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #23
    No, I mean taxes. Revenue is a defined term. I hope your back isn't too sore from all the "linguistic gymnastics;" it can't be easy to make massive accumulation of wealth by corporations and incredibly wealthy people somehow look like the poor are stealing from the wealthy.

    I never said that I alone define anything. But, a program that offers services of any kind can arguably be considered "helping." Right? A program that regulates businesses to protect people likewise can be seen as "helping." Right? Welfare helps keep people in homes, pay bills and eat. That's helping, right? If not, then I obviously am confused. :rolleyes:

    On the other hand, what makes you think a top marginal taxation rate over 50% is somehow bad for people? I mean, the people it would apply to have income several multiples of the amount of money someone on SS receives. SS, a program that helps and IS NOT bankrupt. Speaking of SS, why is there a cap on the amount of income that is taxed to pay for that program? Why oh why?

    By handouts, I mean adding to the debt (and resulting debt interest payments) so tax rates on the wealthy can be reduced. If you are in debt, any reduction in taxes is a giveaway. That's just gradeschool math, I'm sorry you keep having trouble with the concept.

    Example: Fivepoint has a credit card with a $10,000 balance. He has a job paying $5000 per month. His monthly expenses are $6000. His two biggest expense types are 1. booze and hookers and 2. necessities like housing, food, healthcare, clothing, gas, and car.

    If you are a Republican, the only way you are willing to pay down the credit card balance is to cut spending on housing, food, clothes, gas and the car. In an ideal world, you should also get a job that pays less! Republicans want less income and they want to be sick while living in the poor house. But, hey, at least his employer doesn't have to pay him as much!

    Wouldn't it make more sense to make the big cuts from the booze and hookers (military spending)? Wouldn't it make more sense to make some reasonable cuts in housing, food, etc... (no need to wear prada when you can wear old navy), rather than starving and having to walk to work? Doesn't it make sense to work a little overtime to make some extra money?

    Yes, I clearly don't know anything about history (History, you mean way back when minors worked in unregulated and unsafe sweatshops for long hours and next to no pay?)

    The alternative to a government that actually does what government is supposed to do is the one you keep pushing, and that is one that is incapable of doing anything. I'm pretty sure I understand the issues. Do you? I will await your "basic free market" thesis on the issue. Do you have anything beyond your "assumed logic" that all government and taxes are bad?

    If you "true conservatives" want less government, then why do you keep supporting the "fake conservatives" who are stripping union rights, who are invading a woman's right to choose, who are telling people what to put in their bodies, who are destroying democracy in states like Michigan, who are stripping individuals of rights guaranteed by state law (hint-AT&T), and why do you keep advocating for business' right to relocate American jobs to countries that DON'T HAVE FREE MARKETS???
     
  24. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #24
    I did some horseback calculating from US Census numbers about the percentages of income and the total amounts for "the rich". Roughly, those with incomes above $250,000 per year are about 25% of all personal income, or around $1.25 trillion. This is horseback, remember. I don't pretend exactitude.

    So if you run through the 1040 and figure deductions and all that, the AGIs are likely down a good bit. Is an AGI of, say, $800 billion agreeable?

    So at a 50% tax rate, you bring in around $400 billion. That's if you think you can get through Congress. I sorta doubt it, since it bites them and all the friends of the administration. Anyhow, that still leaves a deficit way above a trillion greenies.

    You can "bring the boys home" and cut some of the military spending, sure. But that's at best around $300 to maybe $400 billion. Still way short.

    My understanding is that the US tax rate on corporations is the second highest in the world. You go to messing too much with those rates, you wind up losing not just jobs but corporate Hqs as well. They're already international in scope, so why stay where they're not wanted?

    Doesn't matter how much good our social programs have done. They've grown to the point that we can't afford them. We don't generate enough wealth to tax to support the costs.

    And never forget that the more you tax, the less money there is in the private sector for personal spending or investments for future income.
     
  25. ehoui macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    #25
    No, you need to look at effective tax rate. Btw, I totally agree on spending reductions. However, the rich and corps need to pay for the benefits they receive from this country and if they don't, they they should leave it. :)
     

Share This Page