CNBC: Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit

[Mac1958]

There are enough lucid Republicans to stop cuts from happening.

The Democrats will be cheering Ryan on in the meantime, as he plays right into their hands.

 

[Moonglow]

Paul Ryan is the most useless, corrupt, and full of shit Speaker in history, and that is really saying something, considering Jim Wright and others...

and he's really geeky looking..

 

[OldLady]

I didn't follow the news much then, especially not economic news. So, in a nutshell, what did he do? He shut down three buildings, saving on the heating bill? He sent $ back to the states to save on administration costs? I've never been on welfare, so I wouldn't have noticed that.
I definitely don't understand what/why a "tech era" is or why only that could possibly save it. I thought we WERE in the midst of the tech era. Google and Apple and robotics and Musk and all that.
You don't have to answer if you're not feeling patient. I really don't know much more than that, and I'm just guessing from your answer.

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

A UBI should help ameliorate this social dilemma.

What's a UBI? Sounds like a bladder infection.

 

[danielpalos]

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

 

[Moonglow]

There are enough lucid Republicans to stop cuts from happening.

The Democrats will be cheering Ryan on in the meantime, as he plays right into their hands.

I doubt anything gets cutback more than 5%..

 

[danielpalos]

I simply have both feet on the ground.

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

You may not like it and you ARE angry as hell that people don't fit into your nice neat middle class scheme.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

"Holding people responsible for their own financial futures" is lovely. For every working person in this country who has had money deducted from their check in order to pay for SS and Medicare when we get old, we have been responsible already.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

Chucking it away and blaming anyone who isn't making enough to invest in a 401 K from the time they're 25 in order to have a stable retirement is not going to earn you any points with the vast majority of humans in this country who, regardless of income, know what's actually what.
Dream on.

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Lack of petty cash? Who in their right mind relies on petty cash for retirement...dumbass.

depends on the revenue stream for the petty cash fund.

 

[Moonglow]

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

No their minds are on products they'd like to purchase without having to give out...

 

[LaDexter]

and he's really geeky looking..

He looks Jewish...

 

[Thinker101]

Yeah I noticed, both feet on the ground standing in a puddle of financially unsustainable status quo.

On the bright side, you seem to be a pretty nice person for an emotionally driven reactionary.

LOL, whatever you say, I'm quite amazed how your EQ extends across time, space and Internet message boards, perhaps you should take up a career as a carnival act.

Uh-huh, they're not only getting money deducted from their checks their employers are forced to match those deductions, so what's your issue with those deductions going toward assets held in a private account versus going toward a "program" based on promises of confiscating the incomes of future generations? Do you think these people are too stupid to handle owning real assets or something?

Are you not aware that the current system is cash flow negative and that "trust fund" of government debt the SSA holds is being drawn down and will be completely exhausted in 15 or so years? Are you not aware that SS, Medicare and Fed Pensions are currently almost $110 trillion underfunded over the next 75 years?

LOL, There is no blame, there are only the consequences of one's own decisions and having to take responsibility for them, apparently all your time on this planet has not taught you that lesson.

Once again, anybody that is unwilling to defer present consumption in order to invest in their own financial security doesn't deserve to have any, what's the alternative? Everybody deserves financial security without having to do anything for it? If nobody is responsible for their own material well being who is?

You're not getting it.
I at least hear what you're saying. However, I have been hearing for YEARS that SS will be gone by the time I was 50, 55, 60....and it is still there. Maybe it needs to be funded differently or we need to accept that we need to actually PAY for it instead of grousing by you folks who want every cent you earn to stay in your own pockets and fuck everyone who isn't smart enough or fortunate enough to live like you.
Don't like your attitude, I admit.

What makes a person incapable of planning for retirement?

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Lack of petty cash? Who in their right mind relies on petty cash for retirement...dumbass.

depends on the revenue stream for the petty cash fund.

More like it depends on your petty mind.

 

[danielpalos]

The tech era provided a lot of revenue to the federal government. It was the age of the internet when there really wasn't much around. People starting new businesses from home waking up one morning to find they became millionaires.

Welfare Reform was huge at the time. It was very controversial because the Republicans took over Congress for the first time in decades, and the left and MSM considered it an attack on the poor. In the end, it had very satisfying results although from my point of view, didn't go far enough.

If you were on welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, you went to a local office, they would fill out paperwork, you would sign it, they would ship it off to Washington, then Washington would ship it back with a check, and then they'd mail the check to you, or you could stop by and pick it up. With block grants, it eliminated all that paperwork. The feds would just sent one check to cover everybody for the year, and let the state run those programs instead.

There was a lot going on at that time.

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

A UBI should help ameliorate this social dilemma.

What's a UBI? Sounds like a bladder infection.

It means recourse to an income.

It could be implemented via our existing unemployment compensation system, as well.

Persons could have recourse to an income on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

Market participants would self-select and improve that sector, in that manner.

 

[danielpalos]

Lack of a petty cash fund, for that purpose?

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

No their minds are on products they'd like to purchase with having to give out...

guys usually don't mind helping out, when they are able.

 

[Moonglow]

Why do they have a lack of cash?

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

No their minds are on products they'd like to purchase with having to give out...

guys usually don't mind helping out, when they are able.

Depends..

 

[danielpalos]

and he's really geeky looking..

He looks Jewish...

our local, international banking specialists.

How is the money market doing?

I may want to paper trade a petty cash fund for that purpose.

 

[Darkwind]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Well Dems have been screaming about the deficit. They should be all for cutting all entitlements.

lol. We are entitled to entitlements from general welfare spending not general warfare spending.

WE are not.

 

[danielpalos]

does all work get compensated?

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

No their minds are on products they'd like to purchase with having to give out...

guys usually don't mind helping out, when they are able.

Depends..

guys don't mind, especially when they have a petty cash fund for that purpose.

 

[OldLady]

I don't understand why education can't be handled the same way, except that if I remember right, too many states were resistant to providing education to the disabled. That's when the feds took over and forced compliance. It's why our school systems are sinking--they are being expected to do too much, regardless of the cost. Even if the feds are "helping," the necessary paperwork and the final numbers are still defeating. And a lot of those kids do not belong in a regular school that wasn't designed to meet their needs.
I believe in mainstreaming in theory, but it has gone way too far. So has "diagnosing" far too many students as Special Ed when they're just being kids. But in order to get insurance to pay for counseling services, there MUST be a coverable diagnosis. So kids are labelled with some alphabet soup of "issues" and a whole slew of tracking and meetings and plans and special teachers and blah blah blah ensue.

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

A UBI should help ameliorate this social dilemma.

What's a UBI? Sounds like a bladder infection.

It means recourse to an income.

It could be implemented via our existing unemployment compensation system, as well.

Persons could have recourse to an income on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

Market participants would self-select and improve that sector, in that manner.

Sounds interesting. I have a feeling, though, that if Republicans aren't willing to give $100 a month in food stamps to a family of four, a universal income isn't going to fly for quite awhile.

 

[Moonglow]

Not even a hump for honey-dos...

not enough women believe in equality.

No their minds are on products they'd like to purchase with having to give out...

guys usually don't mind helping out, when they are able.

Depends..

guys don't mind, especially when they have a petty cash fund for that purpose.

I keep mine in a tin lock box...

 

[danielpalos]

Source: CNBC.COM
Paul Ryan wants to cut entitlements to trim the deficit, but political reality stands in his way

"Ryan views tax cuts as a policy to spur economic growth — no matter what the state of the federal budget. An increase in the deficit, which mainstream economists consider a certainty, is beside the point.

Rising debt, in fact, strengthens his zeal for his preferred deficit-reduction policy. That policy is to reduce spending by shrinking the size and scope of government that Democratic political initiatives have built.

In particular, Ryan wants to curb spending on the giant "entitlement" programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. "How you tackle the debt and the deficit," the speaker declared recently, is by "entitlement reform."

Democratic presidents saw those programs as a means of preventing destitution and medical calamity among senior citizens, the disabled and the poor. More than any other contemporary Republican leader, Ryan represents the philosophical tradition that opposed their creation in the first place."

Finally a congress critter saying something that I can fully support, of course the chances of federal entitlement spending reduction actually happening are somewhere between slim and none, but I'll give 'em credit if they stick to their stated principles instead of just doing the usual political sell-out.

"Thus the speaker has supported partial privatization of Social Security, conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for purchase of private insurance, and per-beneficiary Medicaid limits that would reduce federal spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. In opposing the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction report, which called for both tax hikes and spending limits, he explained, "Increasing the government's take from the economy hinders growth."

Getting federal entitlement spending under control is LONG overdue and above are 3 ideas that represent a good start and worthy of serious consideration.

May the force be with you Mr. Ryan.

Well Dems have been screaming about the deficit. They should be all for cutting all entitlements.

lol. We are entitled to entitlements from general welfare spending not general warfare spending.

WE are not.

Yes, dear, we are. It is in our Constitution.

Should we quibble with the right wing, over their implementation not interpretation, of their republican doctrine?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Talk is great, action would be far better. Start with a 100% reduction in all foreign aid, along with ceasing all payments to the UN.

 

[Moonglow]

I don't know. I'm pushing 60 now and I can't recall a time where disabled kids were not taken care of one way or another. Sure, we had our bad kids when I was in school, but real special needs children were segregated to other places.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma. As a landlord, I've run across many of them. Their emails were so unreadable I couldn't even understand what they were asking or requesting. Misspelled words, no punctuation, no sentence structure. It was like reading emails from 8 year olds.

But we have to pass them and give them diplomas so that union run schools can stay on par for graduation rates with private schools, charter schools, and home schooling. We can't let it be known that union run schools are inferior to other education methods.

real special needs children were segregated to other places.
Yes, and some of them should be still.

As for our education system, it's a failure because they pass kids through school and they end up graduating without the ability to read their diploma.
And what is the reason for that? No, it isn't because of "unions." It is because schools are being "graded" by the feds for the # of kids who graduate and they are penalized if they have too many dropouts.
I'm a teacher. Trust me, it is not the unions causing the problem.

A UBI should help ameliorate this social dilemma.

What's a UBI? Sounds like a bladder infection.

It means recourse to an income.

It could be implemented via our existing unemployment compensation system, as well.

Persons could have recourse to an income on an at-will basis in any at-will employment State.

Market participants would self-select and improve that sector, in that manner.

Sounds interesting. I have a feeling, though, that if Republicans aren't willing to give $100 a month in food stamps to a family of four, a universal income isn't going to fly for quite awhile.

Yet they'll keep tax write offs for corporations...