Paul Krugman has won the Nobel Prize for Economics, but his thoughts on this
matter can apparently be minimized since he's "left-wing."Stay classy, DN...
It looks like a plan worth considering. This is the type of plan that
Obama's bipartisan commission, Simpson Bowles, recommended. This plan may
moderately ease the welfare costs by streamlining programs and allowing states
to customize to the needs of the welfare constituents better and the people will
be getting served better. We need to look at the tax code too and streamline
some similar problems there. Some tax cuts need to be allowed to expire or
Mr. Ryan’s best idea is an expansion of the earned-income tax credit. This
program currently costs $59 billion per year, and has a proven track record of
helping poor families. But the current plan offers a paltry assistance to adult
workers with no children. "Mr. Ryan would remedy that by doubling the
maximum annual credit for such workers to $1,005 and lowering the eligibility
age from 25 to 21. It’s nearly identical to a proposal in President
Obama’s 2015 budget that would have cost roughly $60 billion over 10
years."One of the issues that have caused concern is Mr.
Ryan's suggestion to combine many of the current federal assistance
programs - food stamps, housing, etc.) into block grants to be administered by
the states. If that seems like an unfounded cause of concern - that some states
don't care enough about their poor citizens - consider that 24 states are
currently denying over 5.0M of their citizens access to healthcare insurance
because those state governments refuse to participate in the Medicaid expansion
program under the ACA. Thankfully Mr. Ryan suggests that his program be started
with pilot programs in only a few states. Let's see what happens.
Anything that involves helping anyone other than the rich is not going to be
accepted by the republican party. The "dog eat dog and my value system is
the correct one" mentality of republicans will never allow any type of
assistance program. These programs do allow people a chance to grow.
We need plans. Kudos to Ryan for putting something out there.Any
plan, regardless of author or party, should be viewed and reviewed with an open
mind.Is this a good plan or a bad plan? I dont know. But it
should be given a fair review by all.
" What’s noteworthy is this plan is a critical starting point for a
much-needed bipartisan dialogue about poverty. "Really? " .
. . this plan is the starting point? . . . for a much-needed bipartisan
dialogue about poverty?HuhDemocrats have been and are
very much aware of poverty, and the growing income disparity . . . And the
continuing downward slide of the middle class ever since Reaganomics was
enacted. But DN claims Ryan's plan is the starting point for
dialogue on the subject?Well . . . whatever.I wonder
what's included in the plan? . . . The complete elimination of
Reaganomics? That, at least, would make some sense.Trickle Down
economics was supposed to create jobs. WHERE are the jobs?It's
time to bump taxes for high earners back up to pre-Reagan levels.Remember the good old days? . . . When the nation had enough money to pay
it's bills? . . . And the poor and working class had a solid shot at upward
mobility?That all came to a halt with the implementation of
Kudos to Ryan for trying to move the discussion forward.
If it requires people work for what they receive, Democrats will oppose it!
It's essentially the same plan he touts every year! Tax cuts
for the rich.Tax increases on the poor and middle-class.Oh
joy... Cuz trickle down has worked soooooooo well...
There may be parts of the Ryan plan worthy of discussion and consideration.
It's too bad that the Republicans refuse to talk, compromise or otherwise
seek solutions to any problem. Ryan has contributed to this intransigence, so
if his ideas go nowhere, he should look in the mirror.
LOU Montana and Mountanman - I just wanted to suggest that your positions on
either end of the spectrum are NOT helping to move the discussion in a positive
direction. Stop for a minute, take a breath, and consider what the other side
is saying. You just might find something you can agree with. Then you have a
starting point for further discussion.Happy Friday to both of you.
Re "anti-poverty plan should be welcomed to world stage"... But it
won't.Because that's the problem with America today. You
can't acknowledge ANYTHING positive (from the OTHER party).=================Re: "In announcing his program, Ryan
highlighted Utah Sen. Mike Lee’s supportive efforts in combating
poverty"...Wait a minute... isn't Mike Lee the guy Real
Maverick and others blast for having removed a great man (Bob Bennett) from
office??? I don't remember Bob Bennett working for the poor... I remember
him working for the banks, and Wallstreet...==============Maybe, just MAYBE... Tea Party people aren't as EEEVIL as Maverick
"If it requires people work for what they receive, Democrats will oppose
it!"That statement is pure nonsense.
"Re: "In announcing his program, Ryan highlighted Utah Sen. Mike
Lee’s supportive efforts in combating poverty"..."And
what specifically has Lee done to combat poverty?Prevent
unemployment benefits from being extended?Raised their tax rates (while
fighting to keep those earning $200k+ low)?Shut down the government?I want to see specific examples of Lee fighting for Utahns. I remember
him being a disaster while I lived in Utah. And from what family members have
told me, he's been nothing but a disaster since.
@ One old Man: Are government welfare recipients required to work for what they
receive? Forcing some people to work for what they will not receive so others
can receive what they didn't work for used to be called slavery! The LDS
church's welfare program encourages members to voluntarily fast for two
meal and donate the costs of those two meals to the poor who are then required
to work for what they received! Perfect system! No overhead, abuses are
eliminated and the truly needy are helped and eliminates dependency!
I don't know the details of the plan, but one thing I do know, Paul Ryan
really cares about this issue. Amazing to see this man who should have been the
Vice President and compare him the the laughable Biden. Hopefully one day soon,
serious politicians, like Ryan, from both sides will be in power to really solve
these major problems. That won't happen for at least two more election
cycles. Gary OI just gotta ask. Reaganomics?
Your're still believing that Reagans economics (which by the way worked
pretty well in the 80s) are still in play? We've had since Reagan,
President Bush, who had a mild recession that was called the worst economy in 50
years. Which led to Clinton, who actually worked with the Republicans (unlike
Obama) to get things done such as welfare reform, and had a pretty good 90s
economy. Then W who come on when another mild recession was beginning, followed
by a huge 911 downturn. He did pretty well getting us out with about a 4%
unemployment rate. And then we get. OBAMANOMICS. The longest recession in
modern times. Reagan? That was like 25 years ago. Get current please.
@Atlas Smashed,RE: "And what specifically has Lee done to combat
poverty?"...Google "Mike Lee's war against poverty -
The Washington Post"....Or "Sen. Lee urges conservatives to lead
fight against poverty"...Or "Tea Party's Mike Lee leads
unlikely Republican push against poverty"...Or "Sen. Lee urges
conservatives to lead fight against poverty"...Just because YOU
don't know about it... doesn't mean it doesn't exist.==================Contrary to popular Democrat myth... Extending
Unemployment Benefits... isn't the ONLY thing we can do to help the poor.
SOME people have bigger, better, and more long lasting plans...================You and your family may think he's a
disaster.... but is it possible that you are blind to anything positive he
does??? Many Utahns don't agree with you and your family.
Polls indicate he WILL be re-elected.==============This
"blindly attack anybody with tea party ties" thing has to stop. At
least know what you're talking about before you attack them!
"This "blindly attack anybody with tea party ties" thing has to
stop."Good idea. However, lets broaden the statement to reflect
the overall issue.This "blindly attack the "other"
party, or any ideas that come from the "other" party." thing has to
@ 2 litsYou didn't answer the question. As someone who studied
law before ultimately obtaining a MBA at the University of Utah, you did
something that's called "redirecting."If you worked for
me in Santa Monica and I asked you specifics and you gave me headlines,
you'd be out of a job. In the real life business world, when you boss gives
you an assignment, you need to do it. Generalizations and Wikipedia sites and
Washington Post headlines don't prove anything.Posting a few
headlines didn't answer the question. I want you to specifically tell me
what Mike Lee has done to combat poverty. Headlines don't prove anything. I
want you to mention specific policies he helped to pass and how they
specifically helped a specific number of people. This shows that you truly know
and understand the topic at hand. If you cannot do this in your next post then
I'll calmly accept your surrender.
KJB1 said,"Paul Krugman has won the Nobel Prize for
Economics"Like it's really hard to win a Nobel. Just ask
Hey Happy2bhere –“Your're still believing that
Reagans economics (which by the way worked pretty well in the 80s) are still in
play?”I see you’re laboring under several
misassumptions.Reaganomics is the STILL the law of the land, and it
did not work “pretty well” in the 80’s. The price of world
oil plummeted during the Reagan administration to less than 1/3 the price it
had been during the Carter administration. That’s what spurred the economy
. . . Not Reagan’s polices.A plutocrat-friendly, pliable,
Alzheimer’s-ridden President could easily ride the ensuing wave of
economic success. But he didn’t create it. He just got lucky. And in
spite of all the luck that fell in his lap, he couldn’t capitalize on it
for the good of the nation. He TRIPLED the debt.And yes, Reaganomics
is alive and well. It is still in effect. The high tax rate is currently around
39%.. In pre-Reagan days, the high tax rate was almost twice that. “Obamanomics?” Lol . . . You’re actually attributing
GW’s Great Recession to Obama?!Enjoy your delusions.
Streamlining poverty programs is a good thing. Turning them over to the states
is not. Utah and every other Republican state would just continue to
"grind the face of the poor," in violation of the Book of Mormon
commandments. The Utah Republicans' refusal to extend Medicaid is a prime
The comments from Mountanman are telling. If decisions are made at the state
level through federal block grants, then decisions of welfare, housing, and
other types of social assistance will be enveloped by local politics and
religious affiliation. As ECR posted earlier: "consider that 24
states are currently denying over 5.0M of their citizens access to healthcare
insurance because those state governments refuse to participate in the Medicaid
expansion program under the ACA." That's right on.
We've already seen how Utah (and Idaho) will take care of its people.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman labeled Ryan a “con man” and
insisted that this plan is just one more of his “con jobs.” This is true insofar as it does not disturb the overall class structure
which is concentrating wealth and income.
If you don't think we're still practicing Reaganomics then you
obviously aren't in the private sector. Either that, or you have no idea
what Reaganomics are.The greatest failure Obama has had? Failure to
overturn the disastrous Reaganomics. We desperately need to change the ecnomic
culture from short term profits and killing the American worker to long term
health and true economic growth in building the American worker and middle
@Atlas,Did you read the articles???They answer your
question.I have 200 words. Answering your question "what
specifically has Lee done to combat poverty"... takes more than 200 words.
So I can't do it here. But these respectable journalists have done their
research and written these articles that DO answer your question. You should
at least READ THEM first. Then if you still have questions... I'll see if
I can help (in my last post).==============So... you
have an MBA. Nevertheless, we don't need superiority attitude or citing
academic achievements to give credibility to opinions (remember.. this is an
"OPINION page").Read the articles.... They answer your
question better than I can...==========I have 80 words
left so I'll give some examples (from the articles)..."He
lays out a manifesto for dealing with inequality"..."His
latest contribution was a bill, introduced last week, that would restore a work
requirement for recipients of food stamps that was first introduced by president
Bill Clinton in 1996"..."He believes America puts too many
people in prison for too long"...Etc....========Don't be dismissive just because it doesn't fit your
stereotype for tea party people!
Gary OYou know Gary, using pejoratives in an argument is a sign that
you don't have much. However, to respond. You always say Reagan raised
the debt more than Obama. Well here are some stats I bothered to look up.Reagan: In his first term increased national debt by 823 billion, an
11.3% increase.Reagan: 2nd term increased debt by 1.050 trillion, a 9.3%
increase.Obama: In his first term increased the national debt by 6
trillion dollars, and 18.5% increase. And one can only wonder what his 2nd term
will produce.This is not GWs recession. It was caused by stupid
Democrat policy, begun during the Clinton era, that allowed unqualified buyers
to get mortgates. Bush even warned about this, but the Democrats in Congress,
Dodd/Frank types, stopped it. Not Obamas fault either, but Obama has not done
what it takes to get us out of the recession. That is why this is the slowest
recovery in history. That is Obomanomics. Just the facts man, just the facts.
So, uh, what is this plan? As of reading this article, I know virtually nothing
except that it has some bipartisan support. That's great, but hardly
substantive in terms of whether it's a good plan for combating poverty or
So what we have learned here so far this morning is;1) evidently
there are no poor conservatives or republicans that require assistance... they
are all out there too busy working2) democrats are apposed to work -
hope my stake president who is a democrat is aware of that3)
republicans hate the poor (really?)The level of rhetoric is absurd.
8 of the 10 top ten states with poverty are in Republican voting states (TX,
WV, SC, LA, AL, KY, AR, MI) There is little correlation between political
affiliation and voting party. Additionally there are just as many billionaires
that are Democrats as there are Republicans - and the top two (Gates and Buffet)
are self made men.So lets stop the self aggrandizing patting
yourself on the back that your better then others comments - and acknowledge
that for any program (Healthcare Reform, Immigration, Poverty) is going to have
to be a bi-partisan effort. Anything short of that will just be another replay
of the waste of time ACA has become.
My brother served twice in the Middle East toilet known as Iraq. He has friends
who have died over there. Last year, when Mike Lee shut down the government, my
brother and his family lost their checks. If it weren't for his food
storage (taught by his religion) he and his children would have starved. In
fact, he has yet to recover the losses that Lee's government shutdown
inflicted upon him. I guess that's his reward for serving our
country. Meanwhile, Lee took his checks for over $200k. Many others at HAFB
despise Lee. All of them are living close to the poverty line. What has Lee done
for them? He will never vote for Lee ever again. Ironic too, since Lee
hasn't showed his face at the Hill since his shutdown. Gee, I wonder
why?The shut down in total cost Utah over $18 billion dollars.I don't see how anyone can make a case for Lee combating poverty.
His actions during his career have only exacerbated it. servicemen everywhere
cannot wait to replace Lee in 2016. He ticked off the wrong group of people!
I like Paul Ryan's fearless approach to solving a problem. He actually
recognizes poverty as a "now" issue rather than putting poverty on a
to-do list accompanied with political rhetoric. Since his campaign with Romney,
I have known him to be honest, present, coupled with sincerely caring for the
people of this country. I look forward to reading the details of his solutions
on poverty. Think of the positive progress and results of pulling poverty into
productivity in our society...a win, win.
More than 15 Trillion dollars has been spent fighting the "War On
Poverty" since 1964.If there is anything the Federal government
has proven, it's that they have no idea how to end poverty in America. All
they know how to do is waste the tax payer's money.15 Trillion
dollars spent and no results? Ya, now that makes a lot sense.
@ rvalens2More than $100 trillion spent on middle eastern wars,
foreign aid, and nation building since 2000. Yet republicans keep demanding more
and more. When is it enough?
FreedomFighter41:Please tell your brother thanks for his service to
our country. Yes, the grandstanding of many tea-party Republicans did hurt
people out there. And certainly their tactics hasn't moved our country or
the debate on this issue forward.
Mountanman (9:00 am) said, "Are government welfare recipients required to
work for what they receive?"Since 1996, welfare has been
administered through block grants to states. The grant program limits how long
families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also
includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are
successfully moving people into the workforce. In 2012 a memo from the
Department of Health and Human Services, gave states a waiver "to do a
better job connecting people to work, we would consider waiving certain parts of
the performance measures and use alternate measures," In the
2012 Presidential campaign Mitt Romney's campaign claimed the Obama
administration had attempted to gut that welfare to work requirement even though
Romney was one of 29 Republican governors to sign a 2005 letter touting the
benefits of a waiver program identical to the HHS memo. Politifact
called the claim a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it
intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make
welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. "In 2013
Congress passed a bill blocking the proposed waiver program.
"More than $100 trillion spent on middle eastern wars, foreign aid, and
nation building since 2000. Yet republicans keep demanding more and more. When
is it enough?" - FreedomFighter41Hey, I agree with you.
(I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat.) In my opinion, both political
parties have made egregious errors in judgment. Spending trillions on oversea
bases, wars, and nation building is not what the U.S. government should be doing
with the taxpayers' money.I'm also not against government
programs to help the needy. I just want to see results. Spending all that money
and not lowering the poverty level in America (even a small percentage) is
crazy. Wouldn't you agree?Want to know more? Read "War Is A
Racket" by Smedley D. Butler a United States Marine Corp general who
recognized the truth about War. At the time, Butler was the most decorated
Marine in United State's history.
"Like it's really hard to win a Nobel. Just ask BHO."Nope, you only have to be the first black man to reach the head of the
government that practiced slavery, and had a track record of government
segregation and denial of rights.... thats all. If you all can't
recognize the enormity that at the time of his birth blacks and white attended
separate schools, black were forbidden from certain jobs, could not ride on a
bus where they like, among many other things - to the point that he would rise
to the Presidency of that very same nation as something rather remarkable...
then you really don't get it. He won the prize for what he
represented.... not his individual accomplishment - other than becoming
president.It is sad that others outside our country get the
significance of this.... while in Utah.... they still just don't get it.
But then again, perhaps Utah hasn't changed as much as the rest of the
world has with this respect... then again... there is Mia. Who knows. I am
sure she gets why.
Unless the plan involves cutting the minimum wage and cutting all taxes on the
wealthy then it simply won't work.
UtahBlueDevil,Thanks for supporting my point that BHO did nothing to
deserve the Nobel. He basically won a popularity contest and was given the award
by default. Throws the Nobel Committee's credibility out the window. BHO
did not deserve the Nobel for the same reason he didn't deserve to be
president. He is not a leader, is unwilling to compromise and has been in way
over his head from day one. It has nothing to do with him being black. There are
(were) many other black leaders that should've got the job before he did,
if all that mattered was electing the first African American U.S. President.
FreedomFighter41,As if the government shutdown was completely
one-sided. It takes two to compromise. Republicans and Democrats blame each
other all the time for their inaction. You gotta give the Dems (and Obama)
credit, they are very good at deflecting responsibility when it comes to failed
@giantfanEven if it's a meaningless reward... I would be bet my
house he has at least one more Nobel than you.
giantfan - the government shutdown was caused by the Republicans in Congress,
led by Ted Cruz and his little brother Mike Lee, convincing members of the House
to disregard an agreement President Obama had with Speaker Boehner to not shut
down the government and settle their differences in another way. Cruz and Lee
and others could find no other way to make their point about their disagreements
with the ACA and so the cost us tax payers - you and me - $26B to make their
point. There are many issues in Washington that are caused by obstinance on
both sides of the aisle but that was not one of them. It was strictly
MaxPower,"Even if it's a meaningless reward... I would be
bet my house he has at least one more Nobel than you."Wow, that
was good one. I laud you for getting your comment through the rigorous DNews
approval process. Let me guess, your dad can beat up my dad?
ECR,You're deflecting. The government shutdown occurred when
BOTH SIDES failed to COMPROMISE on the appropriations bill that would keep the
government running. Each side demonstrated the same "my way or the
Ryan's new plan isn't substantially different from his prior plans.
The only difference is, his political opponents have taken the time to
familiarize themselves with this one rather than dismiss it sight unseen. After
all, Republicans hate the poor. This is as certain as the sunrise. Why bother
looking deeper? I read Klein's piece of praise on this. He seemed genuinely
shocked to discover that Ryan doesn't posses a coal black heart. Is it
possible that differing ideas may arise from something other than love and hate?
Whoa! This ground is slippery!
Naked Truth -- The government shut down because Republicans insisted that
Obamacare be defunded. So Democrats were supposed to just go along with that?
What was the compromise position Democrats were supposed to take?
@ Naked TruthWhy should democrats compromise on a law that passed
both houses, signed into law by the President, and declared Constitutional by
the Supreme Court of the United States if America?What next,
republicans demanding that democrats (compromise) and repeal Womens Suffrage
(19th amendment) or else they'll shut down the government again?
Krugman has totally lost credibility Nobel prize or not.
Happy2 -- Let's get real. Obama DID NOT increase the debt. The debt
increase during his first term was directly the result of policies established
during the Cheney / Bush administration.If you do some research you
will find that the percentage of debt increase under Obama has been far less
than under any other recent president.But that would be a very
inconvenient truth, wouldn't it?
@KJB1, I'm assuming you take umbrage at DN calling Krugman a partisan. If
you don't believe that he is, then you are one of the last. Among those who
have ceded that Krugman is a partisan are The Economist, The Wall Street
Journal, The Atlantic, Forbes, New York Magazine, I might go on. Krugman is the economist who famously quipped that "Democrats believe what
textbook economics say" in refuting Republican assertions that unemployment
relief doesn't create new jobs. Later, the WSJ produced a text entitled
Macroeconomics in which was expressed the very position made by the Republicans.
The authors of said text? Krugman and his wife. I'll cede that
such a self-contradiction might be motivated by something other than
partisanship, but it's difficult to imagine what it might be.
Happy2bhere -"You know Gary, using pejoratives in an argument is
a sign that you don't have much. "Pejoratives?? . . . Well
suppose I would feel that way if a someone referred to me as a Republican . . .
But I didn't realize Republicans disliked being referred to as
Republicans.Do you prefer the term "Conservative?"And your percentages are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay off.Ronald Reagan
TRIPLED the national debt.There's no getting around it.. . . Unless you're referring to "facts" in Right Wing La
La land . . . Where pigs fly and Ronald Reagan was a Great President.
"Now, because of the ACA, you can quit your job and develop your
talents," Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden said over and over again! What other
possible meaning could that (and many other actions and comments) have other
than Democrats DO NOT believe in working for what they receive but they sure
enough believe in sticking it to tax payers and our grandchildren! All the GOP
needs to do in the upcoming midterms is to play the tapes of Democrats saying
that over and over again, period!
"...Reagan? That was like 25 years ago. Get current please...".Exactly.Why does EVERY Republican today try to out-Reagan each
other?Why don't Republicans get current?President
Reagan tripled the deficit.It didn't matter to President
Reagan, and doesn't matter to Republicans today unless of course the POTUS
happens to be a Democrat.
So what is this Ryan Plan? Please be specific in your answers. When we know we
might have an intelligent discussion about it.Meanwhile, just
remember we can assist whoever we like right now as individuals, families
churches etc.This will enable us to bring about "much
righteousness" and that "without compulsory means".
Paul Ryan's plan consists of big brother and hand holding, all of which is
unrealistic and costly. The projected costs will never fly with the republicans
and handing over block grants to states are never a good idea as the money
always seems to get spent on something other then what it is to be used for.
I'll summarize the plan in two sentences:1. Transfer current
funds to the states and call them block grants, under the guise of giving states
more control.2. Never keep up with inflation or otherwise increase
the amount of money in the block grants, resulting in massive cuts to the
essential services society's most vulnerable depend on.Paul
Ryan pretends to be trying to help the less fortunate, but in fact it's the
same old tired Republican talking points: Tax cuts for the rich, starve everyone
else.Nothing new here.
@2 bits"His latest contribution was a bill, introduced last week, that
would restore a work requirement for recipients of food stamps that was first
introduced by president Bill Clinton in 1996"...That's a
lie, Obama never got rid of the work requirement. He allowed for states to
design other adjustments to their programs at the request of Govs. Herbert and
@Naked Truth"The government shutdown occurred when BOTH SIDES failed
to COMPROMISE on the appropriations bill that would keep the government running.
Each side demonstrated the same "my way or the highway"
obstinance."Democrats were more than willing to compromise by
accepting the entire house funding levels on everything except defunding of
Obamacare. Republicans shut down the gov't because they wanted that too.
Incidentally, defunding Obamacare doesn't keep it from being law, it'd
keep all the mandates, fines, and taxes, and what it'd do is prevent
payment of any of the benefits, the gov't spending part of it. Want
subsidies for middle class families to help buy insurance? Nope. Is that what
Republicans want? I don't think so. They want to scrap all of it, not just
get rid of the good parts and keep the bad. So they shut down the gov't
over something they don't even really want just because it plays good to
their base who didn't bother to pay attention to what defunding Obamacare
would even do. Fortunately for Republicans they didn't succeed in defunding
Obamacare so their base won't have to realize those results.