Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Extra-Constitutional laws must go first.Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution. Providing for the general warfare is not.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.
We need to cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror, first.
We don’t need to do anything first
lol. the government can always draft you and give you guns.Guns or butter.....I vote butter.It is our country's choice to spend more on the military than anything else. It is our country's choice to deny people universal health coverage. It is a choice. There is no reason for a "painful" choice here. It is what we find important, and the well being of individuals is not among them.Ryan is going to sink the Republican ship if he tries touching any of that.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.
Conversion of Medicare to a "premium support" program for private insurance sounds a lot like Obamacare. How's that working out?
Per beneficiary Medicaid limits mean headlines of all the people who get cut off from dialysis treatment or cancer therapy, babies needing open heart surgery who use their benefits by the time they're three.
I have no idea how privatizing Social Security is supposed to save the program. It doesn't seem to have done much for the prison system.
Ryan is driving a spike through the bottom of the boat, if you ask me. You want to see a squawk, try any of that. It will make the Repeal and Replace discussion look like a friendly chat over cookies and milk.
That’s the way it always has been and has led us to this point. Someone will pay for the huge deficits. It may not be now or 10 to 20 years but someone will pay and if we start doing the right things now, it won’t be as painful as it will be when we have no choice. Politicians won’t make those tough calls because they want re-elected, so doing the right thing if it is painful, is not the way of the politician.
It's not a "choice" when you all you do is cater to your WANTS without regard for the COSTS, choices involve sacrificing one thing for another thing (opportunity cost), what we're currently doing is satisfying current wants without regard to the future consequences, out in the real world that's commonly known as being IRRESPONSIBLE and RECKLESS. As far as the "well being" of individuals, that's the responsibility of the individual, Government's responsibility should begin and end with the protection of the life, liberty and property of those individuals.
Personally I have no problem with drastically reducing military expenditures along with every other federal expenditure to the point where Washington is stuffed back in the cage the founders intended it to live in, specifically having only the authority and responsibilities explicitly granted to it by the U.S. Constitution.
Why any work tax for real persons.I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits
I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.
How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?
I think we’re taxed enough already
You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.
Got it.
I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending, why must the priorities be more and more military, walls to keep out the scary Spanish speaking lettuce pickers, and giving massive tax cuts to the richest individuals in our country? I'd rather see our money going to health and housing and education for all our people. Not just the rich ones. Yes, cuts need to be made. Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?Guns or butter.....I vote butter.
Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.
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.
Guns or butter.....I vote butter.
Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.
That's right. Screw the poor and middle class after all, that IS the American Way.
I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits
I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.
How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?
I think we’re taxed enough already
You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.
Got it.
Ryan and his 50 shades of fiscal discipline.
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.
Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?
Ryan has always had a hard-on for social security. Now that he’s retiring he’s going to try to change it, but I doubt he’ll be successful
Cutting services people paid for their whole life?
Why dont that corporatist asshole start with corporate welfare?
According to most righties there is no such thing as corporate welfare. We all know better, but righty loves him some corporate give aways.
I wonder what LoneLaugher thinks about raising the retirement age to receive ss benefits
I think it’s unfair to people who work in jobs that demand physical labor. You know, the kind of people who rely on SS in retirement.
How do you feel about eliminating the cap on income that is subject to FICA?
I think we’re taxed enough already
You think middle class people should pay FICA on 100% of their wage and salary income but wealthy people should only pay on a portion of theirs.
Got it.
I think I should be able to invest my own money for my own retirement.
*BINGO*, the question is when are the voters ever going to hold politicians accountable for doing that instead of just doing the *gimme**gimme**gimme* dance and punishing them at the ballot box for any attempt at prioritizing spending, being fiscally responsible and thinking about the long term good of the Republic instead of just buying votes by catering to short term wants?I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending.Guns or butter.....I vote butter.
Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.
Under the existing welfare state configuration the poor only receive around 13 cents of every subsidy dollar nationally, which doesn't leave a whole lot left to cut. The question you should be asking is when are we going to stop subsidizing people that ARE NOT POOR. If we did that we might actually have some resources to help the people at or below the poverty line to raise their own economic status to economically independent NOT POOR.Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?
I sort of understand that. If we have to prioritize our spending, why must the priorities be more and more military, walls to keep out the scary Spanish speaking lettuce pickers, and giving massive tax cuts to the richest individuals in our country? I'd rather see our money going to health and housing and education for all our people. Not just the rich ones. Yes, cuts need to be made. Why must it always be cuts to the poorest?Guns or butter.....I vote butter.
Uh-huh, keep going the way we're going and you're not going to get either because federal print, borrow, tax & spend status quo is a perfect recipe for economic suicide.
