|
|
Post by AztecBill on Apr 5, 2011 9:17:29 GMT -8
Finally a comprehensive plan to end the deficit. The GOP Path to ProsperityOur budget cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years and puts the nation on track to pay off our national debt. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 5, 2011 13:16:03 GMT -8
This is just the beginning. I heard an interview with Ryan today where he talked about Social Security and Medicare as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 5, 2011 14:01:23 GMT -8
This is just the beginning. I heard an interview with Ryan today where he talked about Social Security and Medicare as well. I thought he specifically left Social Security out of the mix. As to his ideas on Medicare....  Vouchers are just a way of paying back his insurance company donors. What a complete crock. Let's gut the most efficient medical payment system in the U.S. and give billions to the insurance companies. Much of which won't make it to the providers but go into the 30% + overhead rate. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 6, 2011 13:26:22 GMT -8
This is just the beginning. I heard an interview with Ryan today where he talked about Social Security and Medicare as well. I thought he specifically left Social Security out of the mix. As to his ideas on Medicare.... Vouchers are just a way of paying back his insurance company donors. What a complete crock. Let's gut the most efficient medical payment system in the U.S. and give billions to the insurance companies. Much of which won't make it to the providers but go into the 30% + overhead rate. I heard him talk about things to refine in the future and Social Security was on his list. The medical payment system can surely be streamlined. There is very little that government does that could not be made more efficient with a properly structured private contract. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 16:08:02 GMT -8
I note that the right-wing on here still refuses to cut more than "some waste" from the defense budget. I've offered my arguments on this - close virtually all overseas bases, mothball at least 3 carrier battle groups and reform military pensions so they cannot be collected until age 50 with a means test for people like Pooh who made a ton of bucks (at least that's his claim) after they retired.
The military is the greatest public employee retirement system this country has ever seen. Pooh will bitch up[ one side and down the other about public employee retirement systems but the simple fact remains that he retired at age 38 at, I think, about 50 percent of his pay which is sure as Hell more than I got after retiring from the County.
The politicians like to refer to Social Security as being the "3rd rail" but in reality the cost of our defense industry, including the cost of military pensions and health benefits, drives a ton of our debt.
We need to cut our defense budget in half but unfortunately that will never occur because the manufacturing and selling of weapons pretty much drives our economy.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 16:08:48 GMT -8
I thought he specifically left Social Security out of the mix. As to his ideas on Medicare.... Vouchers are just a way of paying back his insurance company donors. What a complete crock. Let's gut the most efficient medical payment system in the U.S. and give billions to the insurance companies. Much of which won't make it to the providers but go into the 30% + overhead rate. I heard him talk about things to refine in the future and Social Security was on his list. The medical payment system can surely be streamlined. There is very little that government does that could not be made more efficient with a properly structured private contract. Prove it. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Apr 8, 2011 16:25:22 GMT -8
=, =, =...
We have, what, a $15 to $16 trillion national debt?
But our unfunded liabilities are more like $80 trillion -- none of which is military. You could eliminate the military entirely and you'd still have something like $60 trillion in upcoming Medicare expenses and another $20 trillion in Social Security payments that have been promised but not yet paid.
I don't favor the Republicans approach but I do favor making virtually all entitlements "means tested".
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 8, 2011 17:20:57 GMT -8
I heard him talk about things to refine in the future and Social Security was on his list. The medical payment system can surely be streamlined. There is very little that government does that could not be made more efficient with a properly structured private contract. Prove it. =Bob Go watch CSPAN till it comes up again. Really, Bob, you need to use what little brain you have left. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 8, 2011 17:24:13 GMT -8
I note that the right-wing on here still refuses to cut more than "some waste" from the defense budget. I've offered my arguments on this - close virtually all overseas bases, mothball at least 3 carrier battle groups and reform military pensions so they cannot be collected until age 50 with a means test for people like Pooh who made a ton of bucks (at least that's his claim) after they retired. The military is the greatest public employee retirement system this country has ever seen. Pooh will bitch up[ one side and down the other about public employee retirement systems but the simple fact remains that he retired at age 38 at, I think, about 50 percent of his pay which is sure as Hell more than I got after retiring from the County. The politicians like to refer to Social Security as being the "3rd rail" but in reality the cost of our defense industry, including the cost of military pensions and health benefits, drives a ton of our debt. We need to cut our defense budget in half but unfortunately that will never occur because the manufacturing and selling of weapons pretty much drives our economy. =Bob I have said means testing is a good idea. I wonder if you would be happy if I were to adopt you and take care of you. Some sort of direct transfer program from responsible adults who took care of themselfs to those who did not? No more smoking or drinking now Bob. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 17:31:03 GMT -8
Go watch CSPAN till it comes up again. Really, Bob, you need to use what little brain you have left. Oh my, you cite a "liberal" source"? How pathetic is that? =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 17:44:54 GMT -8
I note that the right-wing on here still refuses to cut more than "some waste" from the defense budget. I've offered my arguments on this - close virtually all overseas bases, mothball at least 3 carrier battle groups and reform military pensions so they cannot be collected until age 50 with a means test for people like Pooh who made a ton of bucks (at least that's his claim) after they retired. The military is the greatest public employee retirement system this country has ever seen. Pooh will bitch up[ one side and down the other about public employee retirement systems but the simple fact remains that he retired at age 38 at, I think, about 50 percent of his pay which is sure as Hell more than I got after retiring from the County. The politicians like to refer to Social Security as being the "3rd rail" but in reality the cost of our defense industry, including the cost of military pensions and health benefits, drives a ton of our debt. We need to cut our defense budget in half but unfortunately that will never occur because the manufacturing and selling of weapons pretty much drives our economy. =Bob I have said means testing is a good idea. I wonder if you would be happy if I were to adopt you and take care of you. Some sort of direct transfer program from responsible adults who took care of themselfs to those who did not? No more smoking or drinking now Bob. Pathetic troll. Let's see - my taxes have been supporting your sorry ass, your wife and your kids, since you were 38, back in the '70s, despite the fact that you never saw a single day of combat. I'm sorry Pooh, but you have this sense of entitlement that simply does not exist outside of the belief that just because you floated never floated on boats you somehow deserve something we don't simply because you got to served your 20 as a supply officer who never saw combat. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by azdick on Apr 8, 2011 21:47:50 GMT -8
Ryan provides a blank tablet and conservatives (tea party, that is) jump on it like they're on crack.
Not one of you right wingers said a work about Bush's BS wars that were paid for with my tax dollars and never made a part of a budget that was voted by congress. And you see no folly?
The most amusing thing to me about American politics is that republicans see thenselves as spending hawks, when the reality is that republicans spend like crazy on defense and subsidizing big oil, while blaming the dems for supporting safety net issues. In fact, it is the safety net issues that spur the economy (SS recipients spend their money) while coporate welfare recipients put it in they pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2011 5:52:33 GMT -8
I have said means testing is a good idea. I wonder if you would be happy if I were to adopt you and take care of you. Some sort of direct transfer program from responsible adults who took care of themselfs to those who did not? No more smoking or drinking now Bob. Pathetic troll. Let's see - my taxes have been supporting your sorry ass, your wife and your kids, since you were 38, back in the '70s, despite the fact that you never saw a single day of combat. I'm sorry Pooh, but you have this sense of entitlement that simply does not exist outside of the belief that just because you floated never floated on boats you somehow deserve something we don't simply because you got to served your 20 as a supply officer who never saw combat. =Bob Does that mean you do or do not want my help?  If you are too proud to accept my help, Meals on Wheels might stop by your place from time to time. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Apr 9, 2011 8:09:19 GMT -8
It's easy to say you are going to cut $6.2 Trillion when you don't specify what you are going to cut.
When he actually releases a plan that shows how he proposes to cut discretionary spending (including the military) from 12% to 3% of GDP, then it would be worthy of discussion.
Using 2010 GDP of ~$14.7 Trillion, all discretionary spending would have needed to fall below $450 Billion under the Ryan scenario. Considering the Defense budget alone was over $650 Billion, Veterans Affairs was over $50 Billion, and Homeland Security was over $40 Billion, it's pretty easy to see that his plan is completely disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2011 8:15:40 GMT -8
It's easy to say you are going to cut $6.2 Trillion when you don't specify what you are going to cut. When he actually releases a plan that shows how he proposes to cut discretionary spending (including the military) from 12% to 3% of GDP, then it would be worthy of discussion. Using 2010 GDP of ~$14.7 Trillion, all discretionary spending would have needed to fall below $450 Billion under the Ryan scenario. Considering the Defense budget alone was over $650 Billion, Veterans Affairs was over $50 Billion, and Homeland Security was over $40 Billion, it's pretty easy to see that his plan is completely disingenuous. Where do you get that? We have to make a start and that is just what this plan is. Defense and entitlements can become manageable just as we could cut entire Departments. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Apr 9, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -8
Where do you get that? We have to make a start and that is just what this plan is. Defense and entitlements can become manageable just as we could cut entire Departments. If he would start specifying the Departments he would cut then he would have a real budget. Right now it's just a generic outline with no basis in reality. I'm not totally against what he claims he wants, but his plan doesn't do what he says it will. From page 19 of the CBO analysis of his proposal. The PDF of the entire report is available here: www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12128 |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2011 10:11:25 GMT -8
Where do you get that? We have to make a start and that is just what this plan is. Defense and entitlements can become manageable just as we could cut entire Departments. If he would start specifying the Departments he would cut then he would have a real budget. Right now it's just a generic outline with no basis in reality. I'm not totally against what he claims he wants, but his plan doesn't do what he says it will. From page 19 of the CBO analysis of his proposal. The PDF of the entire report is available here: www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12128CBO says in their abstract that their figures are not accurate or words to that effect. What you have to remember is that this is the GOP proposal and that by the time the sausage is made it might look rather different. He has said that entitlements would be addressed in the future. We have got to start someplace. We are six months into this year and do not have a budget so at least Congress is getting to work. I will be calling my Congressman to cut the Departments of Energy and Education in full. Education is a local issue and you can see that Energy has been a complete failure. The market can do better with no interference. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Apr 9, 2011 10:19:58 GMT -8
There is no need to cut back spending. It is all free money. It isn't like we are putting paper money into circulation. We all know that leads to inflation.
The object is to spur the economy, not to balance the Budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Apr 9, 2011 11:19:32 GMT -8
CBO says in their abstract that their figures are not accurate or words to that effect. What you have to remember is that this is the GOP proposal and that by the time the sausage is made it might look rather different. He has said that entitlements would be addressed in the future. We have got to start someplace. We are six months into this year and do not have a budget so at least Congress is getting to work. I will be calling my Congressman to cut the Departments of Energy and Education in full. Education is a local issue and you can see that Energy has been a complete failure. The market can do better with no interference. The CBO uses the figures and assumptions that the member proposing the plan tells them to use. If Ryan says he's going to fund a specific level, they go with what he says even if there is no chance in hell that it would ever happen. That's why they don't comment on the fact that the proposed figures are nearly impossible works of fiction provided by Paul Ryan. I wouldn't have a problem eliminating the Department of Education. It is largely for the benefit of poorer states that historically had poor education systems. I wouldn't have a problem using half of the DOEd budget to offer vouchers to low income parents in areas with failing schools either. The Department of Energy spends half of its budget on acquiring, maintaining, or storing nuclear weapons and material. That would need to be done regardless of whether there is a DOE or not, so it's a farce to claim there is going to be a big savings by eliminating it entirely. So in reality, even if you completely eliminate those two departments, and shift the functions that would need to continue to Defense, you have saved maybe $60 Billion, only $1.5 Trillion from balance. The real issues are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and to a lesser extent Social Security. Social Security isn't as big of a problem because benefits can always be adjusted to match incoming revenue. You know you're going to have 12.4% of payroll below the cutoff level available for benefits, and you know how many people are eligible for benefits, so you could just change the benefits and suffer the short term wrath of the elderly by blaming previous administrations. Medicare/aid is the biggest issue, because the only way to match revenue to expenditures is to stop paying for things once you run out of money, or decide beforehand that you will not cover certain procedures or drugs. Neither party has offered a serious plan to address this because they don't want to tell seniors that they won't cover a $300k surgery to extend the life of an 89 year old with terminal cancer by 3 months. I was initially dismissive of the Ryan Medicare plan, since there is no reason an insurance company would offer a reasonably priced plan to a population of 65+ people, but in reality it would really just be the culmination of Obamacare. You would have a group of government approved private insurance companies offering plans that cover everything the government decides should be covered, at a price that would eventually be capped by the government. The only way the insurance company could make money in that environment would be to combine the seniors with the general population of insurance buyers, so in essence it will create a national insurance market, in which everyone can choose between several nearly identical government approved plans. It won't do anything to control costs, it will just change the funding mechanism from taxes to premiums. The growth in defense spending is unsustainable. The Ryan plan calls for Defense spending to be essentially flat for the next 10 years, which would be nice if it would really happen, but I don't think there is any way either side would agree to that once they see that the program the DOD determines to be the least important is responsible for keeping 1,000 people employed in Missouri, and another 2,000 in China Lake, CA. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2011 12:16:40 GMT -8
CBO says in their abstract that their figures are not accurate or words to that effect. What you have to remember is that this is the GOP proposal and that by the time the sausage is made it might look rather different. He has said that entitlements would be addressed in the future. We have got to start someplace. We are six months into this year and do not have a budget so at least Congress is getting to work. I will be calling my Congressman to cut the Departments of Energy and Education in full. Education is a local issue and you can see that Energy has been a complete failure. The market can do better with no interference. The CBO uses the figures and assumptions that the member proposing the plan tells them to use. If Ryan says he's going to fund a specific level, they go with what he says even if there is no chance in hell that it would ever happen. That's why they don't comment on the fact that the proposed figures are nearly impossible works of fiction provided by Paul Ryan. I wouldn't have a problem eliminating the Department of Education. It is largely for the benefit of poorer states that historically had poor education systems. I wouldn't have a problem using half of the DOEd budget to offer vouchers to low income parents in areas with failing schools either. The Department of Energy spends half of its budget on acquiring, maintaining, or storing nuclear weapons and material. That would need to be done regardless of whether there is a DOE or not, so it's a farce to claim there is going to be a big savings by eliminating it entirely. So in reality, even if you completely eliminate those two departments, and shift the functions that would need to continue to Defense, you have saved maybe $60 Billion, only $1.5 Trillion from balance. The real issues are Medicare/Medicaid, Defense, and to a lesser extent Social Security. Social Security isn't as big of a problem because benefits can always be adjusted to match incoming revenue. You know you're going to have 12.4% of payroll below the cutoff level available for benefits, and you know how many people are eligible for benefits, so you could just change the benefits and suffer the short term wrath of the elderly by blaming previous administrations. Medicare/aid is the biggest issue, because the only way to match revenue to expenditures is to stop paying for things once you run out of money, or decide beforehand that you will not cover certain procedures or drugs. Neither party has offered a serious plan to address this because they don't want to tell seniors that they won't cover a $300k surgery to extend the life of an 89 year old with terminal cancer by 3 months. I was initially dismissive of the Ryan Medicare plan, since there is no reason an insurance company would offer a reasonably priced plan to a population of 65+ people, but in reality it would really just be the culmination of Obamacare. You would have a group of government approved private insurance companies offering plans that cover everything the government decides should be covered, at a price that would eventually be capped by the government. The only way the insurance company could make money in that environment would be to combine the seniors with the general population of insurance buyers, so in essence it will create a national insurance market, in which everyone can choose between several nearly identical government approved plans. It won't do anything to control costs, it will just change the funding mechanism from taxes to premiums. The growth in defense spending is unsustainable. The Ryan plan calls for Defense spending to be essentially flat for the next 10 years, which would be nice if it would really happen, but I don't think there is any way either side would agree to that once they see that the program the DOD determines to be the least important is responsible for keeping 1,000 people employed in Missouri, and another 2,000 in China Lake, CA. In reality, it sounds like you and I think about alike, but differ on the feasibility of cutting spending in specific areas. I agree that Medicare and Medicaid are huge problems. Part of it is in real tort reform so that unneeded tests and procedures are not ordered. I will tell you that in my view there is no way that a government entity can be as efficient as the market. Social Security is really an easy fix. You just need to adjust the full retirement age and maybe even the early retirement age along with remove the cap on earnings subject to the tax. I will be willing to let Ryan and the Congress fine tune their proposal so that the numbers make better sense to most people. If you will remember, the reason that DOE was created was over energy independence. You see that we have made no progress in that area and that any additional functions that make sense that they have now become responsible for could be shifted. Education is a local issue and if vouchers were to be used, it should be on the local level. I firmly believe that vouchers would save lots of money and also improve all school systems by adding a bit of competition to the equation. |
|
Vouchers are just a way of paying back his insurance company donors. What a complete crock. Let's gut the most efficient medical payment system in the U.S. and give billions to the insurance companies. Much of which won't make it to the providers but go into the 30% + overhead rate.
If you are too proud to accept my help, Meals on Wheels might stop by your place from time to time.