Quantcast
Opinion

In our opinion: Paul Ryan's promising anti-poverty plan should be welcomed to world stage

Comments

Return To Article
  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:18 a.m.

    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...

  • Hamath Omaha, NE
    Aug. 1, 2014 6:05 a.m.

    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 modified.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 6:28 a.m.

    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.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    Aug. 1, 2014 6:34 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 1, 2014 6:42 a.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:03 a.m.

    " 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?

    Huh

    Democrats 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 Reaganomics.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    Kudos to Ryan for trying to move the discussion forward.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    If it requires people work for what they receive, Democrats will oppose it!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    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...

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:16 a.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:17 a.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    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 thinks...

    It's possible!

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:41 a.m.

    "If it requires people work for what they receive, Democrats will oppose it!"

    That statement is pure nonsense.

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    "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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:00 a.m.

    @ 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!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:21 a.m.

    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 O

    I 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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    @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!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:39 a.m.

    "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 stop.

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:48 a.m.

    @ 2 lits

    You 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.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    KJB1 said,

    "Paul Krugman has won the Nobel Prize for Economics"

    Like it's really hard to win a Nobel. Just ask BHO.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Aug. 1, 2014 9:58 a.m.

    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 example.

  • Dragline Orem, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Atlas Smashed Santa Monica, CA
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:10 a.m.

    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 class.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:17 a.m.

    @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!

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:33 a.m.

    Gary O

    You 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.

  • Aggie238 Logan, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    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 not.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:41 a.m.

    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 working

    2) democrats are apposed to work - hope my stake president who is a democrat is aware of that

    3) 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.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 10:47 a.m.

    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!

  • Heidi T. Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 11:05 a.m.

    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.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Aug. 1, 2014 11:46 a.m.

    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.

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    @ rvalens2

    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?

  • eagle Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:06 p.m.

    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.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    Aug. 1, 2014 12:59 p.m.

    "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?" - FreedomFighter41

    Hey, 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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Aug. 1, 2014 1:13 p.m.

    "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.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 1:48 p.m.

    Unless the plan involves cutting the minimum wage and cutting all taxes on the wealthy then it simply won't work.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 1:52 p.m.

    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.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 1:56 p.m.

    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 compromise.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 2:25 p.m.

    @giantfan

    Even if it's a meaningless reward... I would be bet my house he has at least one more Nobel than you.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    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 one-sided.

  • giantfan Farmington, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 2:47 p.m.

    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?

  • Naked Truth Salt Lake City, Utah
    Aug. 1, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    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 highway" obstinance.

  • tryanmax Omaha, NE
    Aug. 1, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    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!

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    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?

  • FreedomFighter41 Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 3:37 p.m.

    @ Naked Truth

    Why 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?

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 3:46 p.m.

    Krugman has totally lost credibility Nobel prize or not.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    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?

  • tryanmax Omaha, NE
    Aug. 1, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    @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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    Aug. 1, 2014 7:24 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 1, 2014 7:41 p.m.

    "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!

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 8:41 p.m.

    "...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.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Aug. 1, 2014 11:28 p.m.

    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".

  • Lyn52 Saint George, UT
    Aug. 3, 2014 9:44 a.m.

    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.

  • vern001 Castle Rock, CO
    Aug. 5, 2014 6:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    @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 Sandoval.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 5, 2014 4:40 p.m.

    @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.