"The legislation promises to serve more as a political and policy statement
by House Republicans than a realistic attempt to engage President Barack Obama
and Democrats, who control the Senate, in any serious effort to further cut the
deficit."Does anybody else see a problem with this? Regardless
if one is a Republican or Democrat, the politicians are still playing games with
our future. However, please notice the cuts are mainly in the social welfare
programs, yet none in the military or other wasteful spending areas. Notice how
Ryan wants to cut benefits to others, yet does not cut benefits to himself or
his colleagues. This is just another crap piece of legislation that
does nothing to solve the problem. Even the CBO finds his numbers dubious. The
claim that this promises a balance is ludicrous.
@cavetrollSpot on. This is just more evidence how Congress and Washington
are broken. Our politicans serve their parties and their platforms first and
the people after that.
The republicans cannot even get republicans to support this. Yet when it fails,
DN will blame Obama.
Obama's already gutted the military; now its time for Democrat sacred cows
to go on a diet. Fact of the matter is: if we just eliminated fraud
and waste, we could balance the budget.Too bad Democrats won't
play ball; their constituents are the ones committing the fraud and waste. We should pass a bill: for every dollar of waste, fraud, and so forth,
we cut congressional pay, and the President's pay. Additionally, we force
repayment of fraud and waste from the party in power's election funds. I
guarantee you that suddenly waste and fraud would be a top, top priority.
Remember when Paul Ryan was considered a serious numbers guy? Even made it to
the vp ticket? Krugman was right, Mr. Ryan is a fraud.
@Vanceone,All military spending is approved and managed by congress,
not the president. But thank you for proving my point.
To "cavetroll" once we cut social welfare and entitlement programs and
other non-Constitutional programs down to the same size as the military, we can
Hate to break it to ya Mr Ryan, but when I turn 65, I will have paid 50 years of
Medicare taxes in cash - not vouchers. I expect to be paid in cash not your
RedShirtGo ahead and look into the F-35 program. Please explain to
me how this is not wasteful spending. I'm not saying we shouldn't cut
social welfare programs or other "non-Constitutional" programs, but
there is great waste in military contacts and other federal areas. My point is,
both sides need to come to the table. Neither side is willing to do so. Also
look at the DNews story about Caterpillar and how it is skirting taxes by moving
profits off shore.
There's another issue that he fails to address. A LOT of money is lost
when vulture capitalists send jobs off-shore. Despite that fact, the entities
doing the off-shoring can take tax writeoffs for sending jobs overseas. Changes
to the tax laws should be made that would not only tax the revenues the entities
earn from their off-shore sites but penalize them for costing US workers their
jobs. Make it less expensive for them to keep jobs "at home."
Title: ‘Paul Ryan unveils House GOP budget claiming balance’ Is this the same GOP that doubled the national debt under George W.
Bush? Or the GOP that tripled the national debt under Ronald
Reagan? Can't say either about Obama.
Ed Grady,I'm pretty sure the 50 years of cash you've been
paying into the government welfare programs has already been spent. Consider
yourself lucky to get any of it back.I'm younger than you and
doubt I'll receive any of my payments because...you'll be receiving
money that my generation pays. Demographic projections don't bode well for
my generation.How's that for balanced budgets and government
financial management? Both parties need to go home so we can get a serious
group that can reform taxes, reform entitlement programs, reform the military,
reform government bureaucracy.
To "cavetroll" first, you need to explain why we need to have
unemployment last for 99 weeks (that is nearly 2 years)? Why is it that a
person can get more on welfare than they can working a job for the median
income? If I can get $168/day on welfare, why work for $137/day? This is what
the Congressional Research Service found.Why is it that the
government keeps 7% of my income for retirement and keeps that money after I
die? Why can't the fruits of my labor be passed along to my children?Why do we pay Ethanol companies to burn a food supply? Why subsidize
wind and solar companies so that they can be competitive with coal, gas, and
Kind of wondering where Obama gutted the military Vanceone, every budget so far
has put more and more spending into the military, or are you saying you want
your taxes to go up to pay for your military. The Ryan budget doesn't even
mention the $1.5 Trillion military budget, doesn't mention the spiraling
costs of military health care, doesn't mention cutting waste in the
military, not one word, why?
'Why can't the fruits of my labor be passed along to my
children?' Trust Fund babies? Really? This is the
'Patriots' that people call themselves now? Unwilling and
unrepentant about working to keep from paying taxes. And wondering
why a country fails with such citizens call themselves patriots.
Greed is not a value.
Pagan,Your perspective has some value, though you hopefully can see
value in the side you speak against. The Book of Mormon cautions the poor to
not be lustful towards what they don't have, and that this is also a
manifestation of greed. This prophet/king also speaks to the rich and counsels
that they give freely to help the poor.I ask, what is wrong with
working hard, accumulating excess, and passing a portion of it to our children,
the next generation? Would you suggest that any excess, upon death, is absorbed
by a government that admittedly overspends and lacks fiscal discipline? And why
would the government have a right to a person's wealth upon death? Does
the state own everything now? I call on political leaders to be
compassionate, to live frugally, to give of their substance freely (without
compulsion). But I also challenge government to back off.
Pagan says....Title: ‘Paul Ryan unveils House GOP budget claiming
balance’Is this the same GOP that doubled the national debt
under George W. Bush? Or the GOP that tripled the national debt
under Ronald Reagan? Can't say either about Obama?No, No, NO! Obama has spent more than all Presidents COMBINED!
To "Pagan" no. If over my career I have paid $200000 into the
government retirement system, and another $200,000 into my own retirement plan,
why does the government get to keep teh $200,000 paid into the government
system? Why can't that be given to my 4 kids so that they can get out of
debt, pay of their house, or be used in some other way to benefit them?They won't exactly be "trust fund babies".For 99% of
Americans, they would greatly benefit from being able to give the money they
paid into SS to their children. Their children could use it for their
retirement or other needs that would eliminate debt or else make it so that they
did not need assistance during retirement.Why do you want people to
be dependant on the government throughout their retirement?
TRUTH said: "No, No, NO! Obama has spent more than all Presidents
COMBINED!"True, but he never doubled or tripled it as the other
2 presidents did.
To "Happy Valley Heretic" actually he has.Using the deficit
in 2000 as a point of comparison, Obama has trippled the deficit using the same
point as comparison. You see Bush allowed $4.37 Trillion to be added to the
debt, and Obama has allowed $7.25 Trillion as of September 2013, and is
projected to add $10 Trillion by the time he leaves office. Explain why adding
$10 Trillion to the debt is ok, but adding $4.37 Trillion is bad.
Surely this was just a bad April Fool's joke. Not a word about reducing
corporate welfare, eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy, or increasing the
minimum wage. Nope. First, let's create an economy that funnels all the
wealth to the top, then let's blame the poor for not being able to find
decent jobs. Then let's cut food stamps, unemployment benefits, and
government assistance for health care. In other words, "Let them starve, let
them get sick, and let them die." Thank you, Utah, for voting for people
like Ryan, who will turn this great land into a Third World country in a
generation, if given power to do so.Again, trickle-down economics
does not work! But that's all the Republicans can come up with, so they
keep beating their dead horse. Heaven forbid they gain a majority in both houses
To "Kent C. DeForrest" I am confused. I thought you liked socialism?
You do know that socialism funnels money to the top, and eventually you will
have to cut welfare, healthcare, and government assistance. You do realize that
capitalism has never lowered a country's standard of living, but has always
increased the standard of living.Tirckle Down econoics does in fact
work, and there are numerous studies that show how it works. Capitalism does
more to lift people out of poverty than socialism ever has.If we are
lucky we will have a surge in conservatives get into both houses of Congress.
That way we might have a chance of getting out of the socialist quagmire that
the Democrats have pushed us into.
@RedShirtWe don't need to have 99 week unemployment, that needs
to change. But it is not solely the problem of the unemployed. Why won't
employers hire people? Employees do more for less money now. Why won't
employers pay a living wage? I agree that the government needs to
reduce spending. Why do they need my money after I die? Why do we pay ethanol
companies to burn food supply? I don't know. Why do we pay farmers not to
grow food. Many of these "farmers" are large corporations and
millionaires. I agree with what you are saying, I'm asking why
aren't we cutting most, if not all programs?
To "cavetroll" doesn't it make the most sense to start cutting on
the non-Constutionally mandated items? With your home budget, when you need to
cut expenses do you start by looking at cutting credit car payments or the cable
Obama wants to gut the military--down below pre world war II levels. To
basically give us the military of Costa Rica. This is well documented. It
happened right before the Ukraine crisis, which basically meant Obama's
plan to weaken America was round filed. Thank goodness. As for those who want
to do the standard liberal playbook of "Raise taxes, never, ever ever ever
even consider a cut to spending on anything except for defense--there, eliminate
the military entirely!"--yeah, France is trying that. It's
not worked out well for them.