• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

So listening to Hannity on my way home yesterday (yea I know), he has some lady on who had her kids selling girl scout cookies out front of their house.

The city gets a complaint, they tell the lady you can't have a home occupation and to shut it down. She goes crazy and makes a big stink and ends up on Hannity.

The funny part is the justification by Hannity. It went something roughly like this...

Hannity -Well did you create additional traffic?
Lady - Not really. I mean we are on a fairly well travelled road.
Hannity - So they just said you couldn't do it right?
Lady - Well someone complained about it.
Hannity - Do you know what the complaint was?
Lady - Extra traffic and dogs barking.
Hannity - Another reason government gets in the way of entrepreneurship.
Lady - Yes, girl scouts teaches people skills, and marketing, and business principles, and.....

I love how stupid some people are. Sure girl scouts are cute, but you are breaking the code. You don't like, get it changed. Honestly though, I would guess most people support the home occupations part of many codes.

Just shows how people think though. Well it didn't harm anyone this time... Yea, but it could have. And when it did, who would you have blamed? The community for allowing the cars to park in the road? The fact that Hannity has these people on make me laugh even more...
 
Hink_Planner said:
I love how stupid some people are. Sure girl scouts are cute, but you are breaking the code. You don't like, get it changed. Honestly though, I would guess most people support the home occupations part of many codes.
Click to expand...

I just wish these code enforcement folk would use a little tact rather than bluntly addressing the issue. You can be fair and tactful. It's not impossible.
 
boiker said:
I just wish these code enforcement folk would use a little tact rather than bluntly addressing the issue. You can be fair and tactful. It's not impossible.
Click to expand...

It seemed somewhat fair and tactful. They sent a letter. Probably should have made a site visit, but like HP said, she violated the code. Isn't the whole girl scout/boy scout thing suppose to teach following rules and civics blah blah blah? You would think the mother would get that concept (same with hannity) but alas, it never does.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_4d95ab52-555b-11e0-bb81-0017a4a78c22.html
 
The One said:
Check out this article on the top 1%

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Click to expand...

Gee, thanks for the glimmer of hope for the future. I'm going to crawl into a hole now...

That was an interesting read (though I did not read all of it yet - I am at work afterall...) and relates to a discussion we had here in Cyburbia somewhere in some thread about growing inequality. I thought this encapsulated many of the points raised there quite nicely.

I was particularly struck by this quote, made in response to the question of why the income gap matters in the first place.

The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
Click to expand...
 
The One said:
Check out this article on the top 1%

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Click to expand...

Although I agree with the main argument, there are many other factors at play.

Article said:
In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can argue this point. It is fact. But what you aren't seeing is that many families are now two income. Getting an education is MUCH more common now. Success is not limited by your family name, like it once was. Today if you have a computer and an idea, you might make a million dollars without even working "hard".

Article said:
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.
Click to expand...

I fundamentally disagree with this concept. I think there is more opportunity today then there was yesterday. Globalization has made opportunity abundant. It isn't like it once was, but it is much more fruitful overall than in the 1950's.

Article said:
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.

Article said:
The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree less. I have always had a hard time agreeing that we should demonize the rich. There are bad rich people. Just like there are bad poor people. Those that screw the system on both ends. To me that doesn't mean we demonize the whole group. Just because some misuse food stamps, doesn't mean all people on food stamps are bad people.

I think that article takes an extremely complex topic and uses the simple metrics of rich vs. poor to create an artificial premise. One that is spread often in statements like this:

Article said:
America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them.
Click to expand...

That is due to there being more successful people in the United States. We have more billionaires and millionaires. I would like to see a study that shows there are less people "getting ahead" in the United States than anywhere in Europe. I really doubt that is the case.

Article said:
All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Voter turnout has been on the decline for years. Voters from 18-29 have been in the 40% range for presidential elections since the 70's. Not sure where this 21% stuff came from unless they are discussing the midterm election and then that is about at the 20-30% is is normally.

-----------------------

In the end, when you start something with the rich are bad, you aren't going to win public opinion. More people than not, strive to be wealthy. Demonizing them isn't the way to fix the problem we have with income distribution in this country. And I do believe we have a problem. Unfortunately, the wealthy aren't going to be the only one's who have to suffer to fix some of the financial problems we have.
 
Hink_Planner said:
That is due to there being more successful people in the United States. We have more billionaires and millionaires. I would like to see a study that shows there are less people "getting ahead" in the United States than anywhere in Europe. I really doubt that is the case.
Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive - requested study is right here: http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/pdfs/EMP American Dream Report.pdf

The key graphic:
k0szlx.jpg
 
Our Daily Bread

I hereby submit the final few minutes of a classic 1930s movie as food for discussion.....the depression, working together, teamwork, Commie Pinko influencing. Yes, submitting this on the NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread because (IMO) the afore-mentioned topics are all pertinent (and vital) in the world we inhabit in the year 2011.

I studied this film in a classic movie class many years ago. The main body of the movie is somewhat blah.....boy loses job, economic conditions force young family to move to the country, young family starts a commune on an abandoned farm (with no water access for the crops).

YouTube has the entire movie. I suggest that you start watching at 1:00:00. At this point in the flick the commune members are desperate. Their crops are dying in the hot sun and the only water is a few miles away. Watch what happens. This classic scene says it all.....the power of the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEP5bMpacLQ

Bear
 
Hink_Planner said:
...To me that doesn't mean we demonize the whole group. Just because some misuse food stamps, doesn't mean all people on food stamps are bad people.
Click to expand...

The rich are the individuals behind demonizing public employees and unions in specific. You are dreaming if you think there is not a dedicated effort to eliminate the middle class.

Hink_Planner said:
I think that article takes an extremely complex topic and uses the simple metrics of rich vs. poor to create an artificial premise. One that is spread often in statements like this:
Click to expand...

We use metrics all the time. Now what other standard would you use? Seriously, what are you going to replace numbers and statistics with?

Hink_Planner said:
That is due to there being more successful people in the United States. We have more billionaires and millionaires. I would like to see a study that shows there are less people "getting ahead" in the United States than anywhere in Europe. I really doubt that is the case.
Click to expand...

The rate/percentage of small business start ups is higher in Europe than in the US. The reason often cited is that the access to universal health care removes the worry about paying for health care and allows individuals to take that chance.

Hink_Planner said:
In the end, when you start something with the rich are bad, you aren't going to win public opinion. More people than not, strive to be wealthy. Demonizing them isn't the way to fix the problem we have with income distribution in this country. And I do believe we have a problem. Unfortunately, the wealthy aren't going to be the only one's who have to suffer to fix some of the financial problems we have.
Click to expand...

Carry some more water for the people that view you as scum. Hope you like being a lap dog.
 
boiker said:
http://prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra...2008&base_name=your_world_in_charts_malcolm_g

Also, I HIGHLY recommend the book Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell.
Click to expand...

Very good read. I will have to check out the book.

Arguably, it's simultaneously one of Americas strengths and its weaknesses that this data would likely surprise most Americans.
Click to expand...

We shall see... the link presented the same argument I have seen before. Maybe the book will be more detailed in its data sources and methods.

CJC said:
Ask and ye shall receive - requested study is right here: http://www.economicmobility.org/asse...0Report.pdf
Click to expand...

That report is exactly what I would expect from the Economic Mobility Project. With a mission statement that states:

Americans have historically shown tolerance to accept high levels of income inequality. This stems from an embedded national belief in mobility: a conviction that hard work and honest labor deserve just reward, and a confidence that our society is and should be constructed to provide equality of opportunity, not to guarantee equality of outcomes.
Click to expand...

Would I have expected an unbiased report on both sides? Not really. I agree that the data seems to present an interesting case for income gaps and changes between generations. But to me the anecdotal conclusions that these gaps create less mobility is just not convincing me. I don't know if you can conclusively state that today there is less mobility than in my father's generation.

The EMP also states:

Two-thirds of Americans have higher incomes than their parents.
Click to expand...
Children born into the bottom income quintile are more likely to surpass their parents' income than children from any other income group.
Click to expand...

And I don't think anyone would argue the statement...

Education and Family Background are among the most important factors influencing economic mobility.
Click to expand...

To me it states the same arguments that we have heard - because the income gap is wider, that makes those with less income to not "feel" like they can succeed. Which by their own admission isn't true. I would like to see some actual data over time. Not just a 1000 person sample taken during the economic mess.

--------------------------

I respect the concept of trying to make our country more "mobile". But I don't agree that we aren't mobile now. Or that we were more mobile in my father's generation.
 
^You asked for:

"I would like to see a study that shows there are less people "getting ahead" in the United States than anywhere in Europe. I really doubt that is the case."

You can disagree with the study if you like, but it's from the Pew Charitable Trusts (well-respected and non-partisan) and made up of researchers from The American Enterprise Institute, The Brookings Institution, The Heritage Foundation and The Urban Institute, so I'm not sure why you would expect a "biased" report. Those organizations represent a wide variety of different views from the left to the right. If we're talking about prescriptive action, I'm sure that the four organizations would have wildly different proposals.

You're now changing your argument too - I wasn't showing you a study that shows that we are less mobile than in your father's generation, I was showing you a study that we are less mobile than some place "anywhere in Europe," per your quote above.
 
Local precinct voting will be interesting to see the % that turn out.

Local elections and a highly contested Supreme Court election.

In WI, Green Bay, near west side. At 8:30, of 1162 registered voters, 60 had voted. That is at 5% of the registered voters in the ward. That is a flood for off year spring elections.

The pole workers stated they had been so busy they had not even started touching the absentee ballots yet. This means turnout is probably going to be at least as large as the 20% usually seen in this states history for comparable elections.
 
CJC said:
^You asked for:

"I would like to see a study that shows there are less people "getting ahead" in the United States than anywhere in Europe. I really doubt that is the case."

You can disagree with the study if you like, but it's from the Pew Charitable Trusts (well-respected and non-partisan) and made up of researchers from The American Enterprise Institute, The Brookings Institution, The Heritage Foundation and The Urban Institute, so I'm not sure why you would expect a "biased" report. Those organizations represent a wide variety of different views from the left to the right. If we're talking about prescriptive action, I'm sure that the four organizations would have wildly different proposals.

You're now changing your argument too - I wasn't showing you a study that shows that we are less mobile than in your father's generation, I was showing you a study that we are less mobile than some place "anywhere in Europe," per your quote above.
Click to expand...

Just because you are a member of the Heritage Foundation, doesn't make you a full fledged conservative... the same for liberal and brookings institute. Just because they have members from "traditional" institutions, doesn't mean that they aren't biased.

Fair enough on the argument change. For my original question you found a study that was created by a group that wants to show how mobility isn't as good in the United States as it is other countries. That is like me using Grover Nordquist as rationale for why we need to change our tax code. Although your example isn't as annoying and blatantly biased.

-------------------

Again, I agree with the premise that there is an income gap, and that gap creates mobility issues. But I haven't seen a valid large sample study that shows that gap is creating a loss of opportunity or mobility. I appreciate your perspective and enjoy learning more, so don't take it as though I think you are wrong. I just enjoy having a discussion that is deeper than rich is bad.
 
^Fair enough. I'm still not sure what your issue is with the highlighted portion of their mission statement though, and why you believe that shows bias (it seems to be accepted wisdom to me?):

Americans have historically shown tolerance to accept high levels of income inequality. This stems from an embedded national belief in mobility: a conviction that hard work and honest labor deserve just reward, and a confidence that our society is and should be constructed to provide equality of opportunity, not to guarantee equality of outcomes.
Click to expand...

Income inequality does not equal lack of mobility - it is undeniably true and well-documented that Americans have always accepted higher income inequality (not necessarily a bad thing, IMO) than northern Europe, for example. Part of the reason for accepting that has always been the thought that meritocracy and potential income mobility was more important than income equality (the reason that we didn't go down the same collectivist path as many other countries in the early 20th century).

The worry, brought up in the report and elsewhere, is that in the last 30 years we've seen an increase in inequality without the corresponding increase in mobility, and that inequality has been less meritocratic than in the past.

What is it about that statement that you find biased? They're not claiming something as negative or positive, just stating a known historical fact.
 
CJC said:
I'm still not sure what your issue is with the highlighted portion of their mission statement though, and why you believe that shows bias (it seems to be accepted wisdom to me?)
Click to expand...

I don't believe that their mission is biased - although somewhat presumptive. It is a fair discussion to have. I think that their conclusions are biased. Their mission statement just sets up the bias with assuming that Americans accept mobility is stagnant or inaccessible to some. I don't agree with this.


CJC said:
The worry, brought up in the report and elsewhere, is that in the last 30 years we've seen an increase in inequality without the corresponding increase in mobility, and that inequality has been less meritocratic than in the past.

What is it about that statement that you find biased? They're not claiming something as negative or positive, just stating a known historical fact.
Click to expand...

I understand the worry. And I actually agree with the concept behind the theory. I just don't think that there is any data to actually support that. All the reports that I have seen, even the only one that the EMP has conducted (which is WAY to small of a sample for what they are trying to extrapolate) show that mobility is greater today than it was in the past. It shows a bigger income gap, but it also shows that there is more mobility. Maybe not as much, but there is still more. I don't know that I would ever expect mobility, opportunity, and advancement to continually rise at the same rate as the income gap.

I think what EMP is doing is just - I just don't think they have the data to backup their premise. Maybe over time they will and I will change my mind, but as of now, I don't feel they have proved much of anything other than an opinion.
 
The GOP 2012 budget just released by Paul Ryan is interesting. Republicans won the house last year principally because of opposition to Obamacare - one major reason for the opposition was the "cuts to medicare" that Obamacare enacts. Now the GOP is proposing to cut medicare. An interesting strategy
 
imaplanner said:
An interesting strategy
Click to expand...

You're so...diplomatic!

I'm really not sure what the GOP is thinking with such an extreme remake of so many social programs and then REDUCING FURTHER the tax rates for the rich (not keeping them the same, but reducing them from 35 to 25 percent which would be the lowest rate since WWI at a time when we obviously need revenue) It feels like they are trying to exact some kind of retribution rather than posit a sound path forward. It seems like a risky approach to me, but I suspect they are trying to position their proposal so far to the right that any "compromises" will still end up pretty far in that direction anyway. But, I am just not sure how much this bending to the desires of the Tea Party interests will benefit them in the long run. So many of the proposals (not the least of which is the proposal to essentially privatize Medicare and shift Medicaid to a state-managed block grant funding approach) will hurt working people, many of whom are the historical supporters of Republicans. Not to mention union workers...
 
Weisberg, Jacob. "Good Plan! Republican Paul Ryan's budget proposal is brave, radical, and smart." Slate.com. 5 April 2011. 6 April 2011. <http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/pagenum/all/>

Excerpt:
If the GOP gets behind his proposals in a serious way, it will become for the first time in modern memory an intellectually serious party—one with a coherent vision to match its rhetoric of limited government. Democrats are within their rights to point out the negative effects of Ryan's proposed cuts on future retirees, working families, and the poor. He was not specific about many of his cuts, and Democrats have a political opportunity in filling in the blanks. But the ball is now in their court, and it will be hard to take them seriously if they don't respond with their own alternative path to debt reduction and long-term solvency.
Click to expand...
 
wahday said:
You're so...diplomatic!

I'm really not sure what the GOP is thinking with such an extreme remake of so many social programs and then REDUCING FURTHER the tax rates for the rich (not keeping them the same, but reducing them from 35 to 25 percent which would be the lowest rate since WWI at a time when we obviously need revenue) It feels like they are trying to exact some kind of retribution rather than posit a sound path forward. It seems like a risky approach to me, but I suspect they are trying to position their proposal so far to the right that any "compromises" will still end up pretty far in that direction anyway. But, I am just not sure how much this bending to the desires of the Tea Party interests will benefit them in the long run. So many of the proposals (not the least of which is the proposal to essentially privatize Medicare and shift Medicaid to a state-managed block grant funding approach) will hurt working people, many of whom are the historical supporters of Republicans. Not to mention union workers...
Click to expand...

My annoyance is with the tax cuts. How about we cut everything and keep the tax rates the same or maybe raise them a bit. Maybe we could become balanced sooner? Or does your entire theory balance on tax cuts providing a trickle down effect? :r:
 
Hink_Planner said:
My annoyance is with the tax cuts. How about we cut everything and keep the tax rates the same or maybe raise them a bit. Maybe we could become balanced sooner? Or does your entire theory balance on tax cuts providing a trickle down effect? :r:
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with tax cuts if they make sense. But cutting the top rate to 25% means we have to make up the revenue somewhere else. Based on Ryan's budget and the specific support for tax increases on the middle class in his previous Roadmap for America, I suspect his budget requires huge tax increases for the middle class.

My biggest issue is the privatization of medicare. Yay. let's send all our taxpayer dollars to the for-profit health insurance industry. That is sure to work.:-{:-@

Edit: per this link

According to the CBO analysis the benefit would cover 32 percent of the cost of a health insurance package equivalent to the current Medicare benefit (Figure 1). This means that the beneficiary would pay 68 percent of the cost of this package. Using the CBO assumption of 2.5 percent annual inflation, the voucher would have grown to $9,750 by 2030. This means that a Medicare type plan for someone age 65 would be $30,460 under Representative Ryan's plan, leaving seniors with a bill of $20,700. (This does not count various out of pocket medical expenditures not covered by Medicare.)
Click to expand...

Leaving seniors with a bill of 20,700 per year for medical insurance? Not sustainable. Not even close.
 
imaplanner said:
Leaving seniors with a bill of 20,700 per year for medical insurance? Not sustainable. Not even close.
Click to expand...

Part of the reform bill is a provision that Americans 55 and older are exempt from any program changes, so current retirees and those nearing retirement would suffer no interruption of benefits. Those who will be affected will have time to plan ahead for new programs. It wouldn't be a sudden "here you go, now pay up" abrupt announcement.
 
TexanOkie said:
Part of the reform bill is a provision that Americans 55 and older are exempt from any program changes, so current retirees and those nearing retirement would suffer no interruption of benefits. Those who will be affected will have time to plan ahead for new programs. It wouldn't be a sudden "here you go, now pay up" abrupt announcement.
Click to expand...

I can't plan ahead for 40k a year betwen my wife and I. We barely make that combined as it is now.

Ok. We make maybe double that now, combined. Still...
 
TexanOkie said:
Weisberg, Jacob. "Good Plan! Republican Paul Ryan's budget proposal is brave, radical, and smart." Slate.com. 5 April 2011. 6 April 2011. <http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/pagenum/all/>

Excerpt:
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of the points in the article, but two things stick out to me as giant red flags with Ryan's plan:

1. Defense cuts are seemingly off the table (this especially doesn't seem to jive with some of Ryan's past rhetoric)

2. The ridiculous 2.6% unemployment projection for ten years from now. A number that low is incredibly undesirable - either the projection is too rosy for unemployment numbers, which throws a wrench in the rest of the numbers in the plan OR the projection is right, meaning the projections for inflation are far too rosy, which throws a wrench into the numbers in the plan.

I can't say that I'm a big fan of the Medicare voucher idea - if we're going to do that, I'd rather just increase the flat cash amounts paid out in SS and let people decide how to use the cash, rather than create an entirely new sub-market with locked-in stakeholders and interest groups. That said, I have no issue with injecting some market-based ideas into Medicare and/or giving more individual choice to folks.

The Medicaid idea isn't a terrible idea either, but the numbers are too small. Now, if we got serious about hacking the defense budget down by a third or so, I might get behind the Medicaid idea - simply because more money would be left to the states, who could beef up Medicaid/similar programs on their own if so desired. As it is, a very large percentage of the state-to-state welfare checks flow through the defense budget (money going from California and New York to Alabama and Mississippi, for example), so he's not opening up the possibility of much of a decrease in state-to-state subsidization, he's just making sure that most of that subsidization stays in the hands of Republican-leaning budget items.

Also, it should go without saying that I oppose making the federal income tax less progressive without making any other taxes more progressive - that's just bad economics, IMO.

And lastly, I very much dislike the idea of taking the benefits of anyone 55 and older off the table and punting any actual changes ten years down the road. Too much can change in that time and if there are sacrifices to made, everyone should share in them (to some degree at least).

I thought this was an interesting article on the Medicare portions of both Ryancare and Obamacare: http://theamericanscene.com/2011/04/06/ryancare-and-obamacare-are-two-sides-of-the-same-reform

Leaving the specific details aside, Ryan's and Obama's health care initiatives are complementary, not competitive with each other. Without a functioning individual insurance market, you can't voucherize Medicare. And without pushing most individuals into the individual insurance market, that individual market won't really be the giant risk pool you need to drive the health care system in a more efficient direction. Obama's plan nudged beneficiaries of private, employer-sponsored insurance into the national pool. Ryan's proposal shoves the beneficiaries of government-provided insurance into that same pool.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TexanOkie said:
Part of the reform bill is a provision that Americans 55 and older are exempt from any program changes, so current retirees and those nearing retirement would suffer no interruption of benefits. Those who will be affected will have time to plan ahead for new programs. It wouldn't be a sudden "here you go, now pay up" abrupt announcement.
Click to expand...

It may be ten years away, but for someone 55 who is not likely to increase their salary, saving more than they already are may not be a reality. Bottom line here is that we are talking about the working poor that will be screwed by this. Some folks will be able to afford it, but many will not and its those vulnerable people we should be worried about. Because the reality is, if someone needs emergency treatment, they will receive it. And if they cannot afford it, it will be the taxpayers that cover the difference anyway, but in a very inefficient manner.
 
wahday said:
It may be ten years away, but for someone 55 who is not likely to increase their salary, saving more than they already are may not be a reality. Bottom line here is that we are talking about the working poor that will be screwed by this. Some folks will be able to afford it, but many will not and its those vulnerable people we should be worried about. Because the reality is, if someone needs emergency treatment, they will receive it. And if they cannot afford it, it will be the taxpayers that cover the difference anyway, but in a very inefficient manner.
Click to expand...

This is what just stuns me. How can any breathing human being with a lick of sense not realize one immutable truth in our Federal political system.

They... do... not... care... about... you.​

If you aren't a corporation or very wealthy, you're just election fodder to them. The R and the D don't matter one whit, either. Take away the money, power, and all of the entrapments of the position, and see who still wants to "serve" in Congress...
 
I agree with Ryan that reform is needed. I even agree that the current model does lead to waste in medicaid because of its structure as a matching grant, and that a block grant model might work better. I think the current medicare structure gives no incentive for individuals to consider cost-effectiveness of care. That said, I'm not smart enough when it comes to healthcare policy to know a good solution to these issues.

But I diverge when it comes to the specifics. While his program does address those issues, the financial implications for individual beneficiaries is very, very high (see CBO report). While it doesn't affect current 55+ folks, you start looking at the burden and considering the saving capacity of low-income (and even middle class) to compensate once they get older and you've got a fundamental flaw (this is what the CBO is getting at. In addition, I've got a real issue with privatizing and handing it over to the health insurance industry.

The tax cuts are where this proposal shows its true colors--if you are trying to address a fundamental entitlement issue to balance the budget, why the hell are you cutting taxes to the top bracket?!? Basically, you are relaxing a tax burden on the rich, but increasing the financial burden on lower incomes to provide for healthcare in their later years. Throw in his past Roadmap for America that called for middle class tax increases and you've got a clear message about Ryan's motivation: cutting taxes to the wealthy and damn everyone else (I know, a little hyperbolic, but you get the point).
 
Tanner, Michael. "This Is Going to Hurt." National Review Online. 6 April 2011. 6 April 2011. <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263972/going-hurt-michael-tanner>

Excerpt:
..On the other side of the ledger, Americans are slightly more willing to raise taxes to balance the budget — but only on the “rich,” usually defined as someone earning a lot more than they do. But, of course, taxing the rich won’t get you to a balanced budget either. Even setting aside the damage to the economy that tax increases would do, you simply can’t get enough money out of the rich to solve our fiscal problems. In fact, if you confiscated — not just taxed, but confiscated — all the wealth of every millionaire in America, you could come close to covering our current national debt. But once entitlements start to really kick in, in about a decade or so, we’d be in trouble again.

Any tax increase that would make a dent in our long-term debt would have to go well beyond the rich, biting deeply into the middle class...
Click to expand...
 
imaplanner said:
What a pointless article. Who is suggesting we can solve the problem only by taxing the rich or by confiscating all of their money? Red-herring much?
Click to expand...

Actually, not too much. I've heard from many sources, even in these forums, that the problem could be solved by taxing the wealthy (which includes corporations) and drastically cutting the defense budget.
 
TexanOkie said:
Tanner, Michael. "This Is Going to Hurt." National Review Online. 6 April 2011. 6 April 2011. <http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263972/going-hurt-michael-tanner>

Excerpt:
Click to expand...

My belief is that there should be tax increases all around associated with the cuts in entitlements and defense until our budget is more manageable. We need a constitutional amendment that sets our debt ceiling and spending limits as a percentage of GDP or other equivalent standard.

The problem is the R's want to cut, and the D's want to raise taxes. Why not both? We should give it to a 2nd grader. They are learning how to compromise and could figure it out....:not:

On second thought, let's just shut down the government for a while... that won't hurt anyone....ugh.
 
Mastiff said:
This is what just stuns me. How can any breathing human being with a lick of sense not realize one immutable truth in our Federal political system.

They... do... not... care... about... you.​

If you aren't a corporation or very wealthy, you're just election fodder to them. The R and the D don't matter one whit, either. Take away the money, power, and all of the entrapments of the position, and see who still wants to "serve" in Congress...
Click to expand...

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

"Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work."
 
kjelsadek said:
Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

"Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work."
Click to expand...

If you look above, that is the article that sparked the discussion CJC and I had. I think your quote though is one of the interesting parts of the issue. But much of that comes back to campaign finance law. When we determined that corporations are people, we gave away all ability for an upstart to get to congress. You must have a strong foundation, lots of money, and "friends" to get to congress these days. Having a fair amount of disposable income helps as well.
 
OK, you on the left, enough of the tired, old talking points. In lieu of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, what would YOU do to eliminate our current out-of-control federal deficit - keeping in mind that "closing a few tax loopholes for those filthy rich corporations" just isn't going to scratch it - and before those with zero compassion cut off the federal spending credit cards?

^o)

Right now the federal government is running up the same amount of debt in three weeks that it took a full year to run up during the worst year while GWB was in office. "Move along, nothing to see here..." isn't an option, if nothing is done it will start getting really ugly for our economy and really fast.

:-@

Mike
 
Afganistan bankrupt the Soviets in the 80s and the same thing is going on for us in the 00s. Before anyone jumps on top of me, I know we're in there for a TOTALLY different reason, but we can't have it run along forever.

Just something I had to get off my chest.



Here's another interesting little tidbit.

There are only 555 people ruining this country. The members of the House, the Senate, the President and his cabinet. This isn't about Rs or Ds! This isn't about past or present administrations. It's all of them. They have the power to make the laws, tax codes, budgets, etc. Nobody else does. They can be influenced by lobbyists, media, pundits and idiots alike, but ultimately its their decision to make/vote policy. UNfortunately they have a sweetheart deal with pensions, health insurance and perks we the public will never get a chance to come close to seeing for ourselves. Until that changes and you have 555 other people that are committed to doing things right for the entire population of this country, it will continue.

Can you tell I hate political games? Go ahead a flame me or whatever if you want. I'm just tried of it all right now.
 
mgk920 said:
OK, you on the left, enough of the tired, old talking points. In lieu of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, what would YOU do to eliminate our current out-of-control federal deficit - keeping in mind that "closing a few tax loopholes for those filthy rich corporations" just isn't going to scratch it - and before those with zero compassion cut off the federal spending credit cards?

^o)

Right now the federal government is running up the same amount of debt in three weeks that it took a full year to run up during the worst year while GWB was in office. "Move along, nothing to see here..." isn't an option, if nothing is done it will start getting really ugly for our economy and really fast.

:-@

Mike
Click to expand...

The Left and The Right are both making the same arguments they've been making for decades. What's new in anything that either side is saying? Nothing.
 
kjelsadek said:
The Left and The Right are both making the same arguments they've been making for decades. What's new in anything that either side is saying? Nothing.
Click to expand...

You're right in saying that neither side is saying anything new. However, for the first time in my lifetime (and perhaps for the first time since Coolidge, possibly even Reconstruction), the GOP has an actual proposal that, if adopted, would have actions to back up its rhetoric. In the words of the Slate article I posted the other day, the GOP for the first time is actually becoming and intellectually serious political organization rather than some hypocritical rhetoric-spewers.
 
mgk920 said:
OK, you on the left, enough of the tired, old talking points. In lieu of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, what would YOU do to eliminate our current out-of-control federal deficit - keeping in mind that "closing a few tax loopholes for those filthy rich corporations" just isn't going to scratch it - and before those with zero compassion cut off the federal spending credit cards?
Click to expand...

Cut military spending 10%-15%. Add two new personal income tax brackets, increase the top rate to 50% (better stratify the progressive tax system). Reduce corporate tax percentage to 20% and eliminate arcane rules, credits and exemptions (will result in less burden on small business and coupled with income tax changes will result in more reinvestment). Eliminate/reduce oil/gas exploration subsidy (the industry is profitable and competitive without it).

This is just off the top of my head. Ryan's plan is sweeping, but I don't know all the details. I'm sure the couple points I provided are far from enough to balance the budget. I'm not a representative, I don't have to write the budget.
 
mgk920 said:
OK, you on the left, enough of the tired, old talking points. In lieu of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, what would YOU do to eliminate our current out-of-control federal deficit - keeping in mind that "closing a few tax loopholes for those filthy rich corporations" just isn't going to scratch it - and before those with zero compassion cut off the federal spending credit cards?

^o)

Right now the federal government is running up the same amount of debt in three weeks that it took a full year to run up during the worst year while GWB was in office. "Move along, nothing to see here..." isn't an option, if nothing is done it will start getting really ugly for our economy and really fast.

:-@

Mike
Click to expand...

imaplanner said:
Um. That's not true.
Click to expand...

imaplanner is right. Even from a conservative source (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-debt-jumped-4636-billion-first-q): though there has been a considerable uptick in the debt levels each quarter since the 4th quarter of 2008, the first quarter of FY11 is currently ranked as the third highest quarter in terms of debt accumuluation after 1st qtr FY09 and 4th qtr FY08.
 
boiker said:
Cut military spending 10%-15%. Add two new personal income tax brackets, increase the top rate to 50% (better stratify the progressive tax system). Reduce corporate tax percentage to 20% and eliminate arcane rules, credits and exemptions (will result in less burden on small business and coupled with income tax changes will result in more reinvestment). Eliminate/reduce oil/gas exploration subsidy (the industry is profitable and competitive without it).

This is just off the top of my head. Ryan's plan is sweeping, but I don't know all the details. I'm sure the couple points I provided are far from enough to balance the budget. I'm not a representative, I don't have to write the budget.
Click to expand...
OK, you've cut the current-year deficit from $1.5T to $1.4T. Keep going.

(oops, as per the above-cited article, $1.8T to $1.7T)

TexanOkie said:
imaplanner is right. Even from a conservative source (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-debt-jumped-4636-billion-first-q): though there has been a considerable uptick in the debt levels each quarter since the 4th quarter of 2008, the first quarter of FY11 is currently ranked as the third highest quarter in terms of debt accumuluation after 1st qtr FY09 and 4th qtr FY08.
Click to expand...
I was going on figures quoted in prior discussion postings and the deficit figure for February, 2011 (-$223G). It does not in any way reduce the seriousness of the situation nor the seriously distressing lack of concern on the parts of many in power, and many in this forvm. Also, one does have to remember that the 'fiscal' year and the calendar year do not coincide - the USA's federal government fiscal year runs form Oct-1 to Sep-30. The February, 2011 figure is part of the 2nd quarter, FY2011.

Mike
 
Last edited:
mgk920 said:
OK, you on the left, enough of the tired, old talking points. In lieu of Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, what would YOU do to eliminate our current out-of-control federal deficit - keeping in mind that "closing a few tax loopholes for those filthy rich corporations" just isn't going to scratch it - and before those with zero compassion cut off the federal spending credit cards?
Click to expand...

I am not on the left, but what I would do is completely change medicare, medicaid, and social security. Also raise tax rates.

-Create a tax rate for the wealthy - $1m+ at 43%. Take the existing rates back to the pre-bush cuts rates.
-Cut all "loopholes" for corporations in the tax code. Audit any company that has a $0 tax bill.
-On medicare, I would means test and age limit. Not all seniors should have to pay more, but those that can afford it based on reformed tax rates shouldn't be getting benefits. I like Ryan's proposal in many ways - although there should be a larger window for people to gear up for the change (20 years or so)-
-On social security, I would privatize a large percentage of future payouts as directed funds backed by the federal government and guaranteed not to lose money.

I would imagine we could do a pretty fair amount with the entitlement changes and tax code changes. Everyone needs to suffer to make our country fiscally solvent again.



============================

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecu...ine/glenn-beck-ending-his-daily-fox-news-show

It seems Glenn Beck isn't getting enough freedom on Fox News. Wow. I can only imagine what network will let him spew his moronic drivel daily if it isn't Fox News. They have the market on uninformed moronic drivel.
 
TexanOkie said:
the GOP for the first time is actually becoming and intellectually serious political organization rather than some hypocritical rhetoric-spewers.
Click to expand...

Um. I disagree. His budget relies on alot of rosy projections that even the cbo says are shady. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf

The path for revenues as a percentage of GDP was specified by Chairman Ryan's staff.
The path rises steadily from about 15 percent of GDP in 2010 to 19 percent in 2028
and remains at that level thereafter. There were no specifications of particular revenue
provisions that would generate that path.
Click to expand...

Already well publicized is that his budget relies on unemployment dropping to 2.8% in 2021, which is laughable.

More importantly, cutting taxes for the wealthy AND eliminating adequate health care for seniors is not going to be politically acceptable. And even more importantly, his budget assumes that seniors will just come up with 20k a year each to pony over to insurance companies. That's not going to happen. Its a recipe for disaster. His budget pleases the ideolgues, but most economists are rightfully concluding his budget projections are silly.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/facts_and_figures

Its a budget for ideologues. It's not a serious budget.
 
^^
OK, what would you do to eliminate the current-year $1.8T projected deficit (before the debt-holders do it for us)?

Mike
 
imaplanner said:
Um. I disagree. His budget relies on alot of rosy projections that even the cbo says are shady. http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-Ryan_Letter.pdf



Already well publicized is that his budget relies on unemployment dropping to 2.8% in 2021, which is laughable.

More importantly, cutting taxes for the wealthy AND eliminating adequate health care for seniors is not going to be politically acceptable. And even more importantly, his budget assumes that seniors will just come up with 20k a year each to pony over to insurance companies. That's not going to happen. Its a recipe for disaster. His budget pleases the ideolgues, but most economists are rightfully concluding his budget projections are silly.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/facts_and_figures

Its a budget for ideologues. It's not a serious budget.
Click to expand...

Well, considering the fact that previous to this, there was no counter-budget proposals, period, and that the proposals under the last 6-7 Republican presidents and/or Congresses didn't address any fundamental issues that its rhetoric emphasizes, this is a serious proposal. Is it ideologically conservative/supply-side? Yeah. Does it have a realistic chance of being adopted as it is now? No. Does the plan have problems and issues with it? You bet. But you can't expect an intellectually serious political organization to neglect its own philosophies through its proposed actions, so I stand by my initial assessment.
 
mgk920 said:
^^
OK, what would you do to eliminate the current-year $1.8T projected deficit (before the debt-holders do it for us)?

Mike
Click to expand...

Something else. But actually, Ryan's budget has about the same 2012 deficit as Obama's budget. Both are about 1 trillion. Ryan's budget also increases the deficit in the short term and relies on questionable assumptions to make the long term reductions. Further, the CBO estimates that Ryan's budget may result in losses of closer to 1 million jobs, whereas Obama's budget supposedly creates about that many jobs. In short, it doesn't really do anything other than cut taxes for the wealthy and cut healthcare for seniors and the poor, and it increases our short term debt and unemployment.

I would end all involvement in Afganistan. Cut defense spending 20%. Cut all oil subsidies (36 billion a year currently). Cut farm subsidies. Raise taxes on the top bracket back to 39%. Raise taxes on the middle class by about 2%. Eliminate the homeland security department (too much redundancy), eliminate the provision in Medicare part D that prevents medicare from negotiating drug prices. That's a start. Regarding our long term medicare and medicaid issues its simple. Single payer.

TexanOkie said:
Well, considering the fact that previous to this, there was no counter-budget proposals, period, and that the proposals under the last 6-7 Republican presidents and/or Congresses didn't address any fundamental issues that its rhetoric emphasizes, this is a serious proposal. Is it ideologically conservative/supply-side? Yeah. Does it have a realistic chance of being adopted as it is now? No. Does the plan have problems and issues with it? You bet. But you can't expect an intellectually serious political organization to neglect its own philosophies through its proposed actions, so I stand by my initial assessment.
Click to expand...

Good points.
 
Mike, are you asking for something that we would do that is politically possible? Or just what we would do if elected supreme dictator?
 
Back
Top