# Ryan's budget. WTF?



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

This political satire is 'spot-on'


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Since the political wonks were going crazy over Ryan's courageous budget, I looked at the CBO scoring of his plan.   Hahahahahaha.....I'm laughing as I type.....Ryan's plan assumes that revenues will rise from 15% to 19% of GDP, a 27% increase.  Which revenues are increasing?  Who knows?  Ryan didn't spell that out in his plan; he just figured in an arbitrary increase.  In the world of government, increases in revenues are usually called "taxes," so all you middle class and lower parasites better look out for a tax increase.

He also calls for a 50% decrease in non-interest discretionary spending - aid to the poor, veterans' programs, tax credits, etc.  What is he cutting, specifically?  Nobody knows because it wasn't spelled out.  However, I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that none of these cuts will hurt higher-income folks.

Looks, guys, Bush started two wars and CUT taxes.  Does that sound like living within one's means?  Of course not!  It's time to pay the piper through higher taxes, NOT penalize people struggling to make ends meet in a harsh economy.  We enjoyed years of tax decreases and now we need to pay for those wars.  Stop whining.


----------



## RachelMadcow (Apr 18, 2011)

Useless nonproductive parasitic stoned young liberals posting cartoons


Very telling


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Since the political wonks were going crazy over Ryan's courageous budget, I looked at the CBO scoring of his plan.   Hahahahahaha.....I'm laughing as I type.....Ryan's plan assumes that revenues will rise from 15% to 19% of GDP, a 27% increase.  Which revenues are increasing?  Who knows?  Ryan didn't spell that out in his plan; he just figured in an arbitrary increase.  In the world of government, increases in revenues are usually called "taxes," so all you middle class and lower parasites better look out for a tax increase.
> 
> He also calls for a 50% decrease in non-interest discretionary spending - aid to the poor, veterans' programs, tax credits, etc.  What is he cutting, specifically?  Nobody knows because it wasn't spelled out.  However, I'm going to take a wild guess here and assume that none of these cuts will hurt higher-income folks.
> 
> Looks, guys, Bush started two wars and CUT taxes.  Does that sound like living within one's means?  Of course not!  It's time to pay the piper through higher taxes, NOT penalize people struggling to make ends meet in a harsh economy.  We enjoyed years of tax decreases and now we need to pay for those wars.  Stop whining.




Then why did you vote for someone that promised to NOT raise taxes? Stop lying.



Hat-trick!!
OP, cartoon, and first reply all made by people that haven't read the budget plan!!


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Lying?  What am I lying about?


----------



## RachelMadcow (Apr 18, 2011)

Didnt Obama and the Democrats bailout Wall St., Goldman Sachs, European banks and give tax breaks to Billionaires?



Democrats are not bright


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2011)

RachelMadcow said:


> Didnt Obama and the Democrats bailout Wall St., Goldman Sachs, European banks and give tax breaks to Billionaires?


But...but....but...._*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!*_....andand....KARL ROOOOVE!....andand....HALLIBURTON!....andand...DIEBOLD in OHIO!...andand....FOX NEWS!...andand....DICK CHENEY running the SHADOW GUBMINT in the BASEMENT OF WAL-MART!!!


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Lying?  What am I lying about?


It was easier than typing "disingenuous" 
You can't decry tax cuts unless you want your owned raised....


----------



## RachelMadcow (Apr 18, 2011)

Stoned useless uneducated liberals


I blame the public school system


----------



## RachelMadcow (Apr 18, 2011)

Obama:


Tax breaks for Billionaires and trillionaires


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 18, 2011)

Interesting that Obama care was presented with what, 2309 pages and his budget plan had  a measly 7 pages of smoke and hyperbole. 

So .. exactly what is Obama's priority here... ya think...


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

WOW.  My post said nothing about tax cuts.  I'm supporting tax increases.

Next you'll be accusing me of rationing health care.  Oh wait, that's the insurance companies.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> WOW.  My post said nothing about tax cuts.  I'm supporting tax increases.
> 
> Next you'll be accusing me of rationing health care.  Oh wait, that's the insurance companies.






> We enjoyed years of tax decreases



So you are in favor of increasing taxes??
For whom, exactly?
Do you fall in that category as well??


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> WOW.  My post said nothing about tax cuts.  I'm supporting tax increases.
> 
> Next you'll be accusing me of rationing health care.  Oh wait, that's the insurance companies.



Kitty.. Kitty... Kitty so how did... The Obama Budget Plan.... work out for you..?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Lumpy...lumpy....lumpy....I haven't read Obama's budget plan yet.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.


That's going to wind up in someone's signature area....


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.



You do realize that taxing the rich isn't going to make a dent into the 14 trillion dollar deficit, right?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.



My point is that we need steep spending cuts....something you will never approve of....I'm sure of that.  Remember....14 trillion


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Really?  Discarding the earnings cap on Social Security won't help the fund's outlook?  Raising taxes on individuals making more than $125k/year won't help the general fund at all?  Hell, let's just quit paying taxes altogether since it doesn't help anyway.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Oh, I'm all for spending cuts if they make sense.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Really?  Discarding the earnings cap on Social Security won't help the fund's outlook?  Raising taxes on individuals making more than $125k/year won't help the general fund at all?  Hell, let's just quit paying taxes altogether since it doesn't help anyway.



Yes....reeeeeally,  raising taxes will not make a dent in the 14 trillion dollar deficit.  Do the math. You talk about tax increases and don't say shit about spending cuts.  Quit being so naive.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.


We could seize ALL wealth - not just income, ALL WEALTH - of the top 2% going all the way back to 2001.... Ten years' worth... And the amount collected wouldn't even put a dent in the debt.

*It's the spending, stupid!*


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Why would you assume that I'm against spending cuts?


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Oh, I'm all for spending cuts if they make sense.



What makes sense.....39 billion in a 1.2 trillion dollar budget?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Why would you assume that I'm against spending cuts?



Because you just talk tax increases


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!



Now what?  Just blame the past and live with an ever increasing debt?  You are very naive.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!


The wars are about 1/10th of the debt.

Thanks for playing though.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Lumpy...lumpy....lumpy....I haven't read Obama's budget plan yet.



Well.. isn't that convenient......


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.
> ...



Yea, but if Obama sets tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  We won't be able to claim that there is no difference in the their policies.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

10% is in the trillions - quite a lot!


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

Mr Liberty said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...



What?


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!


I realize you're new here, Kitty, and it seems you may be legitimately concerned about the debt so I'll go easy on ya.

But you're gonna have to bring something more to the table than MediaMatters' talking points and pointing backwards to Boooooosh!!!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> 10% is in the trillions - quite a lot!


90% is a hell of alot more. Get the knives out and let's carve this turkey.

THEN let's start talking revenue.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> 10% is in the trillions - quite a lot!



Actually 10% would roughly 1.4 trillion.  How are you going to handle the rest of the 12.6 trillion deficit?  Hmmmm?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

I think we need to talk both at the same time.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister - I erred.  The actual cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is estimated at around $3 trillion, depending on which estimate you use.  I shouldn't have used the 10%.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Why would you assume that I'm against spending cuts?


Name some cuts that you'd approve of which don't involve the military.

Not that I don't believe that there are numerous areas of national offense that can't be significantly trimmed...Ask anyone.

Well.....?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.  Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I think we need to talk both at the same time.



The cuts that are needed will have to hurt, Kitty.  The dems don't want any pain.  Harry Reid didn't want the Cowboy Poetry Convention cut.  See what we're all going to be up against to make it work?


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I think we need to talk both at the same time.


Revenue takes care of itself. In fact, from 2002-2008 we had RECORD revenue, expressed as both real dollars and as percentage of the GDP, which also ran its highest ever, during that same time period. The budget deficit was actually going down, not up.

It's no coincidence we had between 5-6% unemployment during that time. Not the 9 we're stuck in now.

Put 20 million people back to work instead of paying them to keep them on "funemployment" and you'll see revenue skyrocket.

Let's CUT SPENDING meanwhile.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.


That's never worked, anywhere or any time it's been tried. It is a failed policy.

Ryan's budget does cut defense spending, by the way. Why don't you take some time to read it.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> it takes up more than 20% of our budget.


You don't understand the difference between the annual budget and the long term debt.

Too typical.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.  Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.



How much do you want to cut out of the military?
Better check the numbers of single payer in healthcare.....real numbers, and then you need to check how much taxes will rise from it....from everyone.  Single payer countries have a lot of their wealth taken from them on all levels.  Ask yourself why Canada is starting private practices again.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.


It's the obvious choice because you're a liberoidal....Start naming some non-military programs that need to be cut or dropped altogether.



kitty said:


> Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.


Name the first thing that the feds involved themselves where the costs were contained, let alone brought down.....Just one.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

The jobs aren't there, Midnight.  Where would you suggest they work?  

Revenues may have risen during that time period, but so did expenditures.  Did spending outstrip revenues?

By the way, the deficit actually increased by $1 trillion in 2008.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.
> ...


In .pdf format

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/budget/path-to-prosperity.pdf


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

Oddball said:


> Name the first thing that the feds involved themselves where the costs were contained, let alone brought down.....Just one.


I can.... But it was profitable, so Bill Clinton had to kill it.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> The jobs aren't there, Midnight.  Where would you suggest they work?
> 
> Revenues may have risen during that time period, but so did expenditures.  Did spending outstrip revenues?
> 
> *By the way, the deficit actually increased by $1 trillion in 2008*.


Which takes nothing at all away from the facts I gave you. The deficit was DROPPING before the "crash."


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Actually, I do understand the budget.  Do you?

Canada has an excellent health care systems.  In most cases, my Canadian friends got treatment for their life-threatening illnesses much quicker than I got mine.  And I have top-notch health insurance.  Their system WORKS.

Yes, taxes would go up for everyone under single payer.  I did a comparison of Canadian federal and provincial taxes, including their sales taxes, to what I pay here.  TO make it apples to apples, I had to include my health insurance premiums.  I would end up slightly better in Canada.

By the way, I'm not a "liberoidal," I'm a registered Republican.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> The jobs aren't there, Midnight.


And they won't be coming back, under this uncertain direction coming from this White House. Companies large and small are hoarding capital right now, and I don't blame them one little bit.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> The jobs aren't there, Midnight.  Where would you suggest they work?
> 
> Revenues may have risen during that time period, but so did expenditures.  Did spending outstrip revenues?
> 
> By the way, the deficit actually increased by $1 trillion in 2008.


And Bam-Bam managed to quadruple it in 5 short months......


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Actually, I do understand the budget.  Do you?
> 
> Canada has an excellent health care systems.  In most cases, my Canadian friends got treatment for their life-threatening illnesses much quicker than I got mine.  And I have top-notch health insurance.  Their system WORKS.
> 
> ...




Oh, such comedy!


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Sorry, whore-teaser, I don't read anything from a partisan website, left or right.

Midnight - Yes, I do need to read the Ryan budget rather than just the CBO score.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Actually, I do understand the budget.  Do you?
> 
> Canada has an excellent health care systems.  In most cases, my Canadian friends got treatment for their life-threatening illnesses much quicker than I got mine.  And I have top-notch health insurance.  Their system WORKS.
> 
> ...


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Businesses are hoarding capital because there's no demand.  If demand was up and the chance to make a buck was there, businesses would be expanding.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Sorry, whore-teaser, I don't read anything from a partisan website, left or right.
> 
> Midnight - Yes, I do need to read the Ryan budget rather than just the CBO score.


It's just nine pages.... Shouldn't "tax" you too much.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Oddball, you can call me a liar all you want.  It doesn't change the truth.


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

Hahaha Midnight!  :-D


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Oddball, you can call me a liar all you want.  It doesn't change the truth.


Are you related to our resident moron, "truthmatters?"

Or, are you "truthmatters" mobile edition?


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Apr 18, 2011)

I think Kitty is kinda spunky...especially for a newbie...


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)




----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

It's been fun chatting with y'all, but I'm off to bed now.

Have a good night!


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Businesses are hoarding capital because there's no demand.


Wrong. They are hoarding capital because of the idiot leadership in Washington.

That's loosened somewhat and the unemployment rate has come down a bit, since November. Wonder why?


----------



## kitty (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't know who truthmatters is, but truth does matter!  Good night!


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

The USMB righties flocked to my thread like moths to a flame. Ryan's budget gets ALL of its savings w/o asking the uber-wealthy for jack-squat.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> The USMB righties flocked to my thread like moths to a flame. Ryan's budget gets ALL of its savings w/o asking the uber-wealthy for jack-squat.


Outright lies tend to being people in from all stripes. Especially we independents who you're going to badly need to get Obama re-elected.

And it's obvious you missed the tax reform part of Ryan's plan. It actually increases taxes on "the rich" and removes many loopholes.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> I don't know who truthmatters is, but truth does matter!  Good night!


It doesn't matter to her, or you either obviously.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

He used the Heritage Foundation to score it didn't he?
The Man Behind Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Got the Tax Cuts Wrong, Too - Tina Dupuy - Politics - The Atlantic


> Meanwhile, last three pages of Ryan's The Path: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, published by the House Budget Committee are, in essence, this very analysis provided by the Heritage Foundation -- complete with a link to the Foundation's report.
> 
> *Now, it's an open question as to whether the Foundation -- a rightwing gem funded by Koch Industries, Exxon Mobile and Altria nee Phillip Morris -- has such "nonpartisan" research.* Their mission, after all, "is to formulate and promote conservative public policies," and generally that's the Grand Old Party.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> The USMB righties flocked to my thread like moths to a flame. Ryan's budget gets ALL of its savings w/o asking the uber-wealthy for jack-squat.



Please point out who is flaming?  Looks like a debate to me.  If you want a flame let me know, okay?


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

kitty said:


> Actually, I do understand the budget.  Do you?
> 
> Canada has an excellent health care systems.  In most cases, my Canadian friends got treatment for their life-threatening illnesses much quicker than I got mine.  And I have top-notch health insurance.  Their system WORKS.
> 
> ...



Many Canadians are coming down here for treatment, Kitty, and there are private clinics opening the doors.  There is a reason for that.  FYI, the US has more MRI machines than the world combined.  You need to change your healthcare insurance if Canada has shorter wait periods than you do.  Yours may not be top notched.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > The USMB righties *flocked* to my thread like moths to a flame. Ryan's budget gets ALL of its savings w/o asking the uber-wealthy for jack-squat.
> ...



I said "flocked" to my thread.....

BTW- here is the Ryan budget "unplugged":
The Man Behind Paul Ryan's Budget Plan Got the Tax Cuts Wrong, Too - Tina Dupuy - Politics - The Atlantic


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Obama ran on hope and change.  I contend that he has changed nothing.  The policies that were started by Bush, Obama has continued.  If he changes the Bush tax cuts, well, something changed.


----------



## rdean (Apr 18, 2011)

Look at these replies from the right.  Apparently, Republicans think "depressions" are a "good thing".











They look at these pictures and yearn for the "good old days".  When people didn't need anything but a piece of bread and a bowl of soup.


----------



## whitehall (Apr 18, 2011)

B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> Look at these replies from the right.  Apparently, Republicans think "depressions" are a "good thing".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Straight from the democrat's echo chamber to deeno's mouth.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

whitehall said:


> B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.



When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul's support.
The dems live it and breath it.


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 18, 2011)

rdean said:


> Look at these replies from the right.  Apparently, Republicans think "depressions" are a "good thing".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is the massive printing and spending going to do?  I oppose any tax increase on anyone, until they show they are serious about cutting.  We have a 14 trillion dollar debt.  We are experiencing inflation now.  Energy is everything in our economy.  When inflation raises the price of oil just ten dollers per barrel, thats one trillion dollars leaving our economy.  I don't like Ryan's plan nor Obama's.  Neither plan cuts enough.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

whitehall said:


> B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.



Interestingly, you provide no evidence.  Typical.


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> This political satire is 'spot-on'



And this is the evidence that you use?


----------



## Article 15 (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.
> ...



14 trillion is the debt.  The deficit is $1.7 trillion?

Popping the top bracket a couple of points will put much a bigger dent in the deficit than defunding PP or NPR.

Deep cuts in social and defense spending and yes tax increases are what it is going to take to get the deficit under control.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 18, 2011)

It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
By the way, the _Atlantic _piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.

Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;

*Preliminary Revenue Estimate and Distributional Analysis of the
Tax Provisions in A Roadmap for America&#8217;s Future Act of 2010*

<snip>
_The Roadmap&#8217;s tax provisions would be highly regressive compared with the current tax system. Relative to current law&#8212;and assuming that taxpayers choose their preferred tax system&#8212;the Roadmap would reduce taxes for most people, but the largest reductions would go to those with the highest incomes. After-tax income would rise by 1.5 percent for households in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent with the lowest incomes) but change little for the next two quintiles and go up just 0.6 percent for the fourth quintile. In sharp contrast, the top quintile would see their after-tax income jump 11 percent. Within that group, the top 1 percent would gain an average of 26 percent and the top 0.1 percent a whopping 36 percent. The share of total taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent would rise from 35 percent to 42 percent, while the share paid by the top 1 percent would fall by nearly half from 25 percent to 13.5 percent.
Taxpayers at the top of the income distribution gain most because they get the bulk of capital income, which the Roadmap would exempt from taxation. The change in average tax rates reflects that situation. While average rates would change little among the bottom 80 percent, they would fall dramatically at the top. For example, the average tax rate for the top 0.1 percent would plummet from 30 percent under current law to just 11 percent under the Roadmap._

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412046_ryan_taxplan.pdf


----------



## Meister (Apr 18, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...



Before I sign on to tax increases, I want to see those deep spending cuts, Art.  I don't think there is a politician out there that is really on board with it....except for the tea party members.


----------



## Article 15 (Apr 18, 2011)

Meister said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh, politicians are on board with cutting spending just not spending they like.  This is why if Obama was any kind of a leader he would task the GOP to put forward legit defense cuts and the Dems to put forward legit social spending cuts.  Force them to make the tough decisions on their own sacred cows.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 18, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...



This is true. Thats why Greenspan said all taxes should revert back to Clinton-era rates ystrdy on Meet the Press.


----------



## kitty (Apr 19, 2011)

Meister - proof, please?  The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care.  Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims.  Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement?  Depending on where you live, maybe.  But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.

Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things.  The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies.  To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now.  We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits.  I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.


----------



## editec (Apr 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> This political satire is 'spot-on'


 

Yes it is good satire.

For the corporatists to accuse people seeking changes in the way we tax of being CLASS WARRIORS is a perfect example of the pots calling the kettle black.

Every tax law is has different outcomes on different classes. There is simply no denying that fact.

So in that respect every change in the tax laws is a CLASS WAR EVENT.

CAlling FOR cutting social services that the lower classes depend on in order that we can continue giving tx breaks to billionaires is obviously a CLASSIST ACT.

CAlling for NOT cutting social services that the lower classes depend on, and demanding  that therefore we must DIScontinue giving tax breaks to billionaires is also obviously a CLASSIST ACT.

Pretending that either position is a_ class-neutral event_ is ignorant.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

kitty said:


> Sorry, whore-teaser, I don't read anything from a partisan website, left or right.
> 
> Midnight - Yes, I do need to read the Ryan budget rather than just the CBO score.


It's only partisan because it's the budget as proposed by Republicans.
Just as Obama's budget proposal is made by a Democrat.

There may be another site you can download it from but that's EXACTLY the problem with your messiah and his minions.
"Oh, nose...I ain't listening to what they have to say.....thare ronnnnng"


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


So you're depending on the opinion of a columnist and automatically dismissing the plan because of who helped with the data.
Have you actually read the plan yourself?
Can you point to a paragraph that supports your claim that the "uber-wealthy" pays "jack squat"?


----------



## Meister (Apr 19, 2011)

kitty said:


> Meister - proof, please?  The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care.  Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims.  Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement?  Depending on where you live, maybe.  But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.
> 
> Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things.  The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies.  To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now.  We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits.  I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html
Private Insurance In Canada - In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times
Timely Medical Services
Canada Sees Boom in Private Health Care Business - FoxNews.com
CBC News In Depth: Health care
Calgary's private medical clinic restarts debate
Find Private Clinics in Canada for Walk in Clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
> By the way, the _Atlantic _piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.
> 
> Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;
> ...


OMG!!!!


BULLSHIT!!!!!


HOW DARE THEY?!


Why in fuck's sake should hard working Americans be allowed to keep more of the money they've earned?
The NERVE, I say!


If we can make deep and significant cuts in spending, thus getting Big brother out of our day-to-day lives, why can't we have more money in our pocket?
The opposite would be to cut only enough government to look like you're doing something then say. "Okay we've cut spending now you need to pitch in by paying higher taxes"......




fundamental difference in ideology


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 19, 2011)

Fact is Ryan doesn't ask the wealthy to contribute. He achieves his savings on the backs of the poor & the middle class. How patriotic of him.


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

So that's a "No"......


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 19, 2011)

Here's an article written by former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett;

*Imbalanced Budget: Ryan Gives Wealthy A Free Pass*

<snip>

Crunching the Numbers
Ryan got around this problem by ignoring the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress&#8217;s official revenue-estimating agency, and instead asking the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation to crunch the numbers for him. Its analysis says that economic growth would be so extraordinary from enactment of the Ryan plan that the unemployment rate would fall two full percentage points next year alone, and continue to fall to less than 3 percent by 2020 &#8211; a level not seen since 1953. This massively higher growth leads to higher federal revenues &#8211; $58 billion more next year alone over those that would be collected without the Ryan plan.

A number of respected public finance economists quickly ridiculed the Heritage numbers as grossly implausible. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber said, &#8220;The Heritage numbers are insane.&#8221; In response to such criticism, Heritage simply deleted some of the more extravagant figures from its analysis.

Distributionally, the Ryan plan is a monstrosity. The rich would receive huge tax cuts while the social safety net would be shredded to pay for them. Even as an opening bid to begin budget negotiations with the Democrats, the Ryan plan cannot be taken seriously. It is less of a wish list than a fairy tale utterly disconnected from the real world, backed up by make-believe numbers and unreasonable assumptions. Ryan&#8217;s plan isn&#8217;t even an act of courage; it&#8217;s just pandering to the Tea Party. A real act of courage would have been for him to admit, as all serious budget analysts know, that revenues will have to rise well above 19 percent of GDP to stabilize the debt. 

Why Ryan

In other words, Ryan threw out a bunch of unrealistic numbers to see if they would stick.
Secondly, how can people trust Ryan based on his history.  The man voted for Medicare Part D including making it illegal for the government to negotiate lower pricing from the pharmaceutical companies, this added cost for the taxpayers. The Drug Program's estimated cost equals that of Obamacare.
Secondly, Ryan voted for TARP which doesn't exactly fall into being a spend-thrift.
And NOW he's the champion of the far right?  Me thinks somebody is getting fooled.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 19, 2011)

I don't trust him what w/ his high pitched, Heritage-inspired, voice. Heritage LOL. Hoyer (D-Md) punked him & the Repubs the other day on a budget Amendment too  Ryan almost lost it


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> Here's an article written by former Reagan adviser Bruce Bartlett;
> 
> *Imbalanced Budget: Ryan Gives Wealthy A Free Pass*
> 
> ...



    I just know that soon, very soon, I'm going to hear someone from the left say, "They're the party of NO and they can't present any ideas"  The left and right now both have proposals. Let's start the negotiating.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> Fact is Ryan doesn't ask the wealthy to contribute. He achieves his savings on the backs of the poor & the middle class. How patriotic of him.



What part of the poor don't pay taxes don't your get?
I think it should stay that way for our poor.
If the tax code wasn't so complicated the middle class could have their right offs too. Middle class does not have an army of tax consultants to help them with right offs like the rich do. Many just pay the full amount or most of the full amount, so they are getting soaked.


----------



## Mr Liberty (Apr 19, 2011)

kitty said:


> Meister - proof, please?  The Canadian system isn't perfect by any means, but all of their citizens have access to health care.  Canadians with cancer aren't dying because their insurance companies are denying claims.  Will you wait 6 months in Canada for a knee replacement?  Depending on where you live, maybe.  But you won't wait 6 months for cancer treatment.
> 
> Mr Liberty - Obama certainly has changed some things.  The health care bill was probably the largest though I'm not happy with the way it expanded the role of insurance companies.  To bring down health care costs, insurance companies must have a far smaller role than they have right now.  We all have to pay for that unnecessary layer of administrative costs and profits.  I'm not a big fan of added costs with little to no benefit.



Actually, Bush did.  In 2005 he worked on tort reform to reduce cost.  
Bush pushes tort reform in Illinois - Politics - msnbc.com

These are the things that were done during the Bush presidency.

Nation health care is promoted by Progressives.  There are progressives in both parties.  This idea of socialized medicine has been push on us since Teddy Roosevelt. 
2003
President George W. Bush signs the  Medicare Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA), creating a voluntary, subsidized prescription drug benefit under Medicare, administered exclusively through private plans, both stand-along prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans. 


2005
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 makes significant changes to Medicaid related to premiums and cost sharing, benefits, and asset transfers.


2006
Medicare Part D Drug benefit goes into effect in January.

National health care spending totals $2.2 trillion or $7,421 per person and 16.2 percent of the economy, a federal report concludes.

2007
Census Bureau estimates 45.6 million uninsured (15.3% of the population) in 2007.

President Bush announces health reform plan that would replace the current tax preference for employer-sponsored insurance with a standard health care deduction.  Proposal is not acted upon by Congress. 


2008
Mental Health Parity Act amended to require full parity.  

Presidential campaign focuses early on national health reform, overshadowed later by housing crisis and economic downturn, yet remains a key pocketbook issue throughout the campaign.  Both major party candidates announce comprehensive health reform proposals.

I believe Obama's health care will fail.  It is unpopular and has Constitutional problems.  I am oppose to all federal health care.  The federal government should only regulate interstate commerce. So if I want to buy a cheaper insurance in another state, I should be able to.
Health care should be done at the state level.  This way if you want health care you can move to a state that offer it.  If you don't want to pay for it move to a state that doesn't have it.  I like having choices.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 19, 2011)

kitty said:


> The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.



You can pay as much money to the government as you want at any time.

My taxes don't need to be raise just because you feel guilty.

BTW I paid over 60 grand in taxes and that's just federal tax.


----------



## The T (Apr 19, 2011)

peach174 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Fact is Ryan doesn't ask the wealthy to contribute. He achieves his savings on the backs of the poor & the middle class. How patriotic of him.
> ...


 

Which is precisely why the present system should be abolished. The Fair or Flat tax should be considered. Tax commerce. NOT income.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 19, 2011)

HEY!!! Are you an Aussie? If not, why you got that foreigner as your AV?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 19, 2011)

RachelMadcow said:


> Stoned useless uneducated liberals



Is that a saying from the department of redundancy department?


----------



## hortysir (Apr 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> HEY!!! Are you an Aussie? If not, why you got that foreigner as your AV?


HEY!!! Are you an Ass-Hat? If not, why didn't you know that Mel Gibson was born and New York and, because of his 'Mum', holds dual citizenship in America and Ireland?


----------



## boedicca (Apr 19, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...





He only believes what his Progressive Overlords tell him to believe.


----------



## The T (Apr 19, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > HEY!!! Are you an Aussie? If not, why you got that foreigner as your AV?
> ...


 
Thanks.


----------



## The T (Apr 19, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> HEY!!! Are you an Aussie? If not, why you got that foreigner as your AV?


 
And what is YOUS? Your latest _ACID TRIP?_


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.



The point is that, as it has been stated many times, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Raising taxes will only give the politicians more money to spend.

The other issue is that all Obama and the Dems can do is demagog Ryan's plan without any real solution of their own. Obama's budget ver 2.0 was nothing more than a campaign speech he was forced to give as his first budget was a joke.
On the other side, the Repubs could only pass cuts that equaled less than 1% of the deficit.

Until both parties decide to lose the partisan bickering and their desire to stay or get in power, no real solutions will be presented. I give Ryan credit for attempting to take a big swing at this 14+ trillion deficit. I do not think it comes without problems but I would consider it a good first draft with much tweaking to do.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 20, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> HEY!!! Are you an Aussie? If not, why you got that foreigner as your AV?



Proof that liberals don't think before they speak.


----------



## Charles_Main (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.



The Fact is despite the Liberal lies, Going back to Pre Bush Numbers. Would hit the middle class the hardest.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.


How about cut spending to the levels when Bush was POTUS? Spending is the problem, obamaturds problem. Obamaturd just wants to spread the wealth on the backs of people who actually earned the money. Socialist.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2011)

Ryan might've just put Pelosi back in the Speakership in '14 what w/ that privatization nonsense


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 20, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.
> ...



oh, well, since it won't 'make a dent' why don't we just stop taxing them altogether. i mean they're rich, they got it hard enough off as it is.

everyone is going to have to make some sacrifices.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.


How about paying for obamaturds rampant spending? He has spent more than Bush in alot shorter time. Get over Bush to try and justify the current socialist in chief, only idiots do that.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Really?  Discarding the earnings cap on Social Security won't help the fund's outlook?  Raising taxes on individuals making more than $125k/year won't help the general fund at all?  Hell, let's just quit paying taxes altogether since it doesn't help anyway.
> ...


Kity is a socialist, what do you expect from idiots.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!


There you go again idiot, obamaturd has done us in, stop blaming Bush.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 20, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!
> ...



Why are you picking on a female named kitty. She wanted Bu$h II's wars to be paid-for. I also wanted him to put them on his budget requests which he didn't. You realize that the cost of those wars is still going on don't you? Didn't think so.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

kitty said:


> Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.  Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.


Obamacare =socialism.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 20, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...


Yeah I do. It is just I don't like socialists ruining this great country. Obamaturd is much worse than Bush. Everybody wants to blame Bush, go cry a river. Bush did what he had to after we were attacked. Even the dimwits in congress agreed with him at first until they got scared and started worrying about their political careers. Oh by the way, 9-11 is a direct result of that baffoon clinton cowardice.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 20, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!
> ...



To quote Ronald Reagan, "there you go again"!
Anybody and I mean anybody with an understanding of math, economics and facts would know that where we are with our debt is a accumulation of several presidents.  And yes, Obama increased the ante by quite a bit,  But the debt is no just his baby.
And then there's the future bills left to Obama that are mandated parts of his budget,,,,like Medicare Part D which costs taxpayers as much as Obamacare and it's in the budget every year, just like Obamcare will be in every budget every year.  How about Iraq and Afghanistan,,,,,in the budget for years to come.
Man, some people are so, so, so,,na I'm not going to say it.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Oddball said:


> RachelMadcow said:
> 
> 
> > Didnt Obama and the Democrats bailout Wall St., Goldman Sachs, European banks and give tax breaks to Billionaires?
> ...



Can't stand it, can ya...


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Lumpy 1 said:


> Interesting that Obama care was presented with what, 2309 pages and his budget plan had  a measly 7 pages of smoke and hyperbole.
> 
> So .. exactly what is Obama's priority here... ya think...



The Executive Branch (the President) doesn't write the bills.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

hortysir said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > WOW.  My post said nothing about tax cuts.  I'm supporting tax increases.
> ...



I would say change the means test to over one million and raise it to 40%. Then we might get 39% where it was in 1999 and I don't recall any millionaires whining that they would no longer be able to afford that third vacation home.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Lumpy 1 said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > WOW.  My post said nothing about tax cuts.  I'm supporting tax increases.
> ...



Something's changed? In fact, things have NOT changed to the point that Social Security recipients didn't see a COLA increase last year. In spite of the economic downfall, other than the unemployed which were largely the victims of the massive greed by investment bankers which forced businesses to close up shop, the average middle-class person has basically seen no change in either wages nor taxes nor prices.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.
> ...



Neither is cutting funds for Planned Parenthood or NPR. What will cut the deficit is to bite the bullet and adopt most of the Deficit Panel's recommendations. But of course Congress nixed that immediately because much of it would create a political nightmare for them. Gotta think about getting reelected, you know, as the top priority.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Set tax rates where they were before the Bush tax cuts.  Would it affect me?  I don't know.
> ...



The $14 trillion figure is too often bandied about as being the current deficit, when it's an estimate 10 years out. So in fact a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes should reduce that number, at least according to current calculations.

CBO&rsquo;s Estimate of the President&rsquo;s Budget


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.
> ...



I keep hearing that (regarding "all the wealth" meaning nothing), but have yet to see any real calculations. 

Certain large spending outlays will always be with us, like interest payments on the debt, the entitlement programs and military spending, but those can be reduced or remedied so that paying down the debt will become manageable, both in the short and long term. I don't think anyone expects it to ever be paid in full, even Ron Paul.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, I'm all for spending cuts if they make sense.
> ...



That was for the balance of the 2011 budget. They haven't even begun on 2012.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

hortysir said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > I agree!  Years and years of unfunded wars really did us in!
> ...



And you guys need to bring something more to the table than parroting the Republican mantra:

"We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

When you admit that *we HAVE BOTH*, then let the game begin in earnest.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Oddball said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you assume that I'm against spending cuts?
> ...



I would imagine a lot of cuts could be made in the behemoth Department of Homeland Security where there are huge overlapping responsibilities. 

The failed policies costing a fortune for the "war on drugs," which should be taken in a whole new direction of legalizing certain drugs (and taxing them appropriately) and serious rehabilitation, since nothing seems to work in keeping them out of the hands of those who wish to use illegal drugs. Privately run rehab centers are popping up all over the country, but they're enormously expensive for the average person. They don't have to be "by the sea" semi-spas; they could be clean prefabricated housing units in the middle of a desert as long as they're run effectively.

Subsidies for agrifarming, trade guarantees, and the like.

Subsidies for oil, natural gas, nuclear. Everyone screams that the private sector can do energy better than the gubmit, so let them try, all by themselves. And maybe if subsidies were also eliminated to promote "green" stuff, the private sector would _also_ step up for a change. But it seems few private investors are willing to go it alone, without at least _some_ help from Uncle Sam.

I would even prefer that HUD be cut in certain areas, like the Section 8 program *IF* the private sector would build more low-income housing. But the problem with so-called "welfare" programs like Section 8 is that there are no alternatives, and you can't just pull the rug out from under people who currently depend on those programs for survival. 

To be honest, if the USSC hadn't determined that the line item veto was unconstitutional, I think a lot of costly programs never would have gotten off the ground to begin with, grown exponentially over the years, and reached the point of no return now.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

kitty said:


> Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.  Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.



Conceivably, a single-payer health care system would eliminate the need for Medicaid and Medicare and all other subsidized health programs. The folks running health insurance companies would have to look to some other form of employment, just like anyone else whose job is eliminated due to obsolescence.


----------



## editec (Apr 21, 2011)

Maggie actually hit on a problem that few people recognize would come if an universal Single Payer HC (USPHCI) system was established.

Private HC companies are not very efficient. Government run HC systems are VERY efficient. 

So if we went with that plan, many many people currently working as admin drones for private HC insurers would be out of work.

The net saving that this nation enjoyed as a result of that policy would in large part be paid personally by those who lost their jobs.

FYI, Medicade/Medicare uses only about 2% of its total budget from admin.

Private insurance companies use about 25% of their budget for admin.

My point here is that the numbers of people who would be looking for work would be a rather considerable number.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.  Switch to a single-payer system so that the costs of health care drop.  That's two for starters.
> ...



Canadians could always see their own doctors, in their own private practices. They have a single-payer system, and they like it (warts and all).

Poll: Canadians like their health care despite grumbles | McClatchy


> New Ipsos-McClatchy online polls find that patients in Canada are indeed much more frustrated by waiting times to see medical specialists than patients in the United States are, and slightly less happy with the waiting times to see their family doctors.
> 
> *However, they're much more likely to say that they have access to all the health care services they need at costs they can afford, by a margin of 65 to 49 percent.*



I have relatives in Ontario, and they say the same thing.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Oddball said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Defense spending is an obvious choice since it takes up more than 20% of our budget.
> ...



Why do you always have to be so insulting? Who wants to respond to an asshole like you? I did, and I'm sure you'll have one of your precious ad hominems for me, too.

If you want to be taken as credible, just shut up, _Dude_. Your "message" gets lost in translation.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Oddball said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I do understand the budget.  Do you?
> ...



Believe it or not, most _honest_ Republicans don't have your one-size-fits-all solution to everything.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > Businesses are hoarding capital because there's no demand.
> ...



Because they have the hope that they'll be able to increase their pocket money even more. 

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash


> Sitting on these unprecedented levels of cash, U.S. companies are buying back their own stock in droves. So far this year, firms have announced they will purchase $273 billion of their own shares, more than five times as much compared with this time last year, according to Birinyi Associates, a stock market research firm. But the rise in buybacks signals that many companies are still hesitant to spend their cash on the job-generating activities that could produce economic growth.



How very "American" of them. 

And then a little sidebar in the 4/15/11 issue of "The Week," quoting a USA Today article, _"Median pay for CEOs of large U.S. corporations rose 27% in 2010, according to federal data. Three quarters of CEOs received raises in 2010, to a median salary of $9 million, including $2.2 million in bonuses. Pay increaes for all workers in private industry averaged 2.1% in 2010."_

Doesn't look like they did all that bad under that "idiot leadership in Washington" after all, eh?


----------



## hortysir (Apr 21, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...


Absolutely.
Search my posts. I've said exactly that. I'll contribute more taxes.
Just raise everyone's taxes equally and stop with the class warfare jealous bullshit.
But, I must add, we'll make the biggest dent with spending cuts.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Midnight Marauder said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know who truthmatters is, but truth does matter!  Good night!
> ...



She has an opinion based on what she sees as truth, just as you do. Why is it you and your ilk always make it appear like anyone who disagrees with you is violating some law of the universe because, well _OBVIOUSLY_, _[we]_ are right and _[you]_ are not. Have you been appointed by God?


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Meister said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.
> ...



Oh please. President Bush never vetoed a single spending plan in eight years, and budgets contained billions in unchecked earmarks. He also had his own pet projects to "save families" from divorce, etc., which went largely unreported because of the HUGE expenses of non-budgeted items--the war supplementals. 

I agree that spending in general is a problem, BUT, _it always has been_. So to imply that ONLY Democrats spend like drunken sailors is disengenuous at best, and a lie at worst.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 21, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > AmericanFirst said:
> ...


ZZZzzz. Why did you drop out of high school? The only people who use the word "turd" are 7th graders. BTW- whats the last book you read aside from say something by Levin?


MaggieMae said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...


Wasn't one of Payland's children born in Canada?


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > B. Hussein Obama admitted that federal spending is out of control and so did the nut case that passes for senate majority leader when they made a deal to cut spending. When did democrats realize that federal spending is out of control? When Americans sent about 65 democrats packing in the last election? You gotta wonder why democrats would fight to keep taxpayer funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion industry when Obamacare apparently covers the manslaughter. The short answer is that democrats don't give a damn about the future of this Country. All they care about is pandering to the criminal base that funds their next campaign.
> ...



Of course there is _<wink wink>_

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...l-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

"This statement is not intended to be an actual factual statement."
John Kyle


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

kiwiman127 said:


> It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
> By the way, the _Atlantic _piece linked by Dot Com is an interesting read.
> 
> Here's an interesting read from the Tax Policy Center;
> ...



What a surprise.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I think that's what the Gang of Six will determine in the coming weeks. It's impossible to forge any kind of agreement that all 535 members will sign on to, but they will once they see a legitimate, sensible plan. A working "plan" is what's really been missing all along.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

hortysir said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > It looks to me that the righties on this thread know as little about Ryan's plan as Kitty knew about Obama's.
> ...



What will it take to make you guys see the inequities in those numbers? Why on earth you *support* the highest earners getting off paying the least amount in taxes is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Vanquish (Apr 21, 2011)

It's hilarious that just because it rolls off the tongue easily (due to alliteration) the "Blame Booosh" retort / meme has sufficed as a defense for conservatives who don't have anything else to answer.

"Blame Booosh" "Blame Booosh"  - yeah I do, Blame Bush. And everyone else who came before him too, actually.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 21, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Every report I've read states that the top 10 percent of income earners pay at least 70 percent of federal income taxes. 

Now how can you sit there and say that the rich are paying the least?

Or is that you just can't help from lying?


----------



## Vanquish (Apr 21, 2011)

Apparently you're not reading the right reports. It's the 55-200k earners that do the lion's share of the paying, chief.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Mr Liberty said:
			
		

> I believe Obama's health care will fail.  It is unpopular and has Constitutional problems.  I am oppose to all federal health care.  The federal government should only regulate interstate commerce. So if I want to buy a cheaper insurance in another state, I should be able to.
> Health care should be done at the state level.  This way if you want health care you can move to a state that offer it.  If you don't want to pay for it move to a state that doesn't have it.  I like having choices.



Everybody _likes_ choices. Unfortunately, many _have_ no choices, mainly the middle class citizens who don't meet the income formula for Medicaid, yet earn too little to afford any private health insurance. (And that's what this is *all* about.)

Maybe this is a good spot to add regarding Ryan's solution of vouchers for elders in lieu of Medicare, I wonder who can name a health insurance company that would be willing to insure a person in his/her 70's and in failing health whose $15,000 voucher would be spent within three or four months.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> kitty said:
> 
> 
> > The point you're missing is that I'm supportive of tax increases regardless of its effect on me.   None of us paid for the wars and it's time we finally did.
> ...



Sure you did.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

editec said:


> Maggie actually hit on a problem that few people recognize would come if an universal Single Payer HC (USPHCI) system was established.
> 
> Private HC companies are not very efficient. Government run HC systems are VERY efficient.
> 
> ...



But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 21, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can burn through that in a day or two. Remember when Limbough went to the hospital in Hawaii w/ chest pains last year? they gave him all the tests, released him, and gave him a bill for $20,000 LOL A claller on his show challenged him as to the cist and he said "Oh, half the avg price of a used SUV". When pressed firther, he stated it was $20K. I'm thinking it was more LOL
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201001070030


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 21, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.


----------



## digger (Apr 21, 2011)

RachelMadcow said:


> Didnt Obama and the Democrats bailout Wall St., Goldman Sachs, European banks and give tax breaks to Billionaires?
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are not bright



Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress, and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush II. If you hate it, you have both parties equally to blame for it. So it's not a very good partisan issue unless you're into distortion...


----------



## Twofox (Apr 26, 2011)

Article 15 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > kitty said:
> ...



The old "We'll make cuts if you let us increase taxes".  So taxes go up, but the cuts never come.  This would be the 3rd time this has been proposed.  Make the cuts first, prove to us that you can stop the insane spending, THEN we'll agree to raising taxes.

I am soooo pissed off at all the politicians right now.  I wonder if I can stop paying any taxes until they learn how to not spend so damn much?  They're like teenagers on a spending spree.  Time to cut off their money.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.



In the alleged mind of the leftist, government creates all things..

Say Maggie, what were the most profound advances in the 20th century?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.




So they pay the most, but they pay the least because, um, well, OBAMA AKBAR, OBAMA AKBAR....

Are there 12 total IQ points in the entire fascist democratic party?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

digger said:


> Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress,



The fuck it was, liar.

Both houses were controlled by the fascist democrats. Further more, your Messiah® was so intent on looting the public on behalf of Goldman Sachs and AIG that he left the campaign trail to vote for TARP.

You fascists are such fucking liars, seriously.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



That's a load of horseshit!

The top earners pay the bulk of federal taxes. Now how in the hell can you say they don't have a heavier tax burden?

Before 2003, the top 1 percent of taxpayers earned about 19 percent of all earnings and paid 31 percent of taxes. After Bushs tax reform, their share rose to 37 percent of total taxes paid. The top 10 percent of taxpayers didnt do any better; they had paid 63 percent of taxes before 2003 and paid 68 percent after. The people who benefited the most were the bottom 50 percent of wage earners. They paid 11 percent of taxes before 2003. Now, after the Bush tax reform they pay only 2.89 percent of taxes.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > But at least they wouldn't be unskilled, like so many who hit the unemployment lines and had jobs they held for 25+ years which will never come back. If the private sector took on all the things I mentioned, it would mean tens of thousands of new jobs. But they don't seem to want to take risks, invest in new industries here, so the government steps in and either gives them a push (seed money/subsidies) or takes over altogether.
> ...



The Interstate Highway System, funded by the federal government.

The Apollo space program, and all space exploration thereafter, funded by the federal government.

To name the biggest ones that CREATED a job CREATION frenzy among the private sector. 

And of course there were a few boondoggles that the federal government spent billions on that never, literally, got off the ground: The Star Wars defense shield (Reagan) and the Supercollider (Bush Sr.)

Next question?


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously the dollar amounts are higher, but their share of the tax burden becomes the lowest the way the system is currently set up.
> ...



What is:
15% of $34,000? 
35% of $1,000,000?

The person earning $34,000 would have a serious cash flow problem if he paid the full 15%, or $5,100. The person earning $1,000,000 has income tax credits he can take that brings his taxable income down lower than $5,100 (if not, he needs a new tax accountant). But his tax LIABILITY, before the writeoffs, is $350,000.

It's a no-brainer.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> digger said:
> 
> 
> > Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress,
> ...



You quite obviously know zero about the history of how TARP came about. Pathetic. Simply fucking pathetic. Go way until you educate yourself. You just look foolish.


----------



## MaggieMae (Apr 26, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



That's nice, except that the higher income folks never actually have to *PAY* THOSE RATES!!!! But I don't know where you got your percentages, to begin with. Here are the historic tax brackets:

Historical Individual Income Tax Parameters

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. 

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.

One of every eight dollars of the tax cuts went to the 1 in 1,000 taxpayers in the top tenth of 1 percent, the annual threshold for which was in the $2 million range throughout the last administration. The only other large beneficiary was parents with children under 17 who make enough to pay income taxes, thanks to the $1,000-per-child tax credit Republicans started championing in the mid-1990s.

In 2008 nearly 1 in every 200 high-income taxpayers paid no federal income tax, up from about 1 in 1,500 in 1998.

The share of high incomes that were untaxed increased more than sevenfold to one dollar of every $166.

All of those numbers are readily available from a myriad of financial pages, as well as the IRS.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Are you saying the person making 34 grand has NO tax credits? You're about as stupid as they get. The fact is the bottom 50 percent pay NO federal income tax! And I'm sure the 34grand earnings would be in the bottom 50 percentile.

I earned just over 500 grand this year and paid almost 70 grand in federal income taxes. What were your earnings and how much did you have to pay?

Tell me what tax credits would the one million a year earner use to get his taxes down below 51 hundred? This I'd like to see!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



You're quoting David Johnston?


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> digger said:
> 
> 
> > Intentional misdirection or just bland ignorance? TARP was created by a Republican Congress,
> ...








MaggieMae said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



He really shot himself in the foot w/ that one. I saw it coming a mile away. He thinks he's real swift


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> The Interstate Highway System, funded by the federal government.



I'm surprised you didn't put up AFDC or SSI...

What profound changes did the IHS make to the lives of average Americans?



> The Apollo space program, and all space exploration thereafter, funded by the federal government.



What did most people get out of it?



> To name the biggest ones that CREATED a job CREATION frenzy among the private sector.



I understand that you never made it to high school, but neither of those created the mass of jobs you seem to think they did.



> And of course there were a few boondoggles that the federal government spent billions on that never, literally, got off the ground: The Star Wars defense shield (Reagan) and the Supercollider (Bush Sr.)



High Frontier directly effected the fall of the USSR, something the democrats will NEVER forgive Reagan for.  Regardless, the program continues to this day, championed by Bill Clinton and Dear Leader alike, as vital to American defense. Apparently KOS or whatever hate site does your thinking for you, didn't get the memo.

Sadly the SuperCollider never saw the light of day, it was canceled by Bill Clinton leading to the further decline of America as the dominant nation for scientific advancement. 

Not to insult you Maggie, but you're pretty stupid. Seriously, you are fully aware of your own lack of education and the reasons why you were not able to achieve in academic pursuits.

The invention of the Air Conditioner has save untold lives and changed the nature of the human experience by allowing people to survive and thrive in hostile climates.  (Courrier - 1902, America)

The Invention of the Air Plane change the world in dramatic and profound ways. Every aspect of life was altered by this. (Wright Brothers, 1903, America)

Albert Einstein publishes the theory of relativity, creating the atomic age. (1905, Switzerland)

Robert Watson-Watt created Radar in 1935, changing the nature of the threat of attack forever. (America)

The Microwave oven altered the way America and the world cooks. (Spencer (Raytheon,)1946, America)

Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley invent the transistor. The solid state age opens.  (1947, America)

Oral contraceptives (the pill) changed the sexual views and habits of the world. (Colton, 1954, America)

Arguably the most profound invention in human history, the Integrated Circuit changed every aspect and facet of life, virtually no aspect of modern life has not been altered by this miracle. (Kilby, 1958, America)

Building on the work of Jack Kilby and Texas Instruments; Intel is founded and creates the microcomputer. (Noyce, 1971, America)

Ethernet, the foundation of the internet was invented at Xerox (PARC) (Metcalf, 1973, America)

One thing to note, not one dime of government money funded any of these.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> What is:
> 15% of $34,000?
> 35% of $1,000,000?
> 
> ...



So your argument is that there should be no tax credits or exemptions?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

MaggieMae said:


> You quite obviously know zero about the history of how TARP came about. Pathetic. Simply fucking pathetic. Go way until you educate yourself. You just look foolish.



Yep, because in 2008, the GOP controlled congress...

{Senate D - 51**  House D - 233 }

Party In Power - Congress and Presidency - A Visual Guide To The Balance of Power In Congress, 1945-2008

Fucking moron...

{    (CBS/AP) After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened.

    Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections.

    In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe.

    Bipartisan supporters rallied around a unity theme  a stark contrast to the political bickering that marked Mondays shocking House defeat, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

    The measure did not cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, were making rare appearances to vote their support. That would send the package back to the House, where passage would require a turnaround of 12 votes from Mondays 228-205 defeat.

    Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic disaster.}

Obama, McCain both vote &#8220;Yes&#8221; on Senate bailout bill | You Decide Politics

GodDAMN but you're stupid. Seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> He really shot himself in the foot w/ that one. I saw it coming a mile away. He thinks he's real swift



Yeah I did, Scheiß Maus - I mean, what could be more profound that inventing roads, cause government did - unhunh, Maggie sez sew...


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2011)

Thanks for the thread-bumps nonsense2008


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Apr 26, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> Thanks for the thread-bumps nonsense2008



Anytime, Scheiß Maus, I love exposing you fascists as the ignorant fools that you are.


----------

