Ryan's Budget Proposal - It's a Start

[Vol423]

Not available at the moment.

Again, their only options at this time are to liquidate a perfectly fine small business and work for a larger company who will provide it, or avoid needing to go to the hospital for the next ten years until they qualify for Medicare.

If their "perfectly fine small business" isn't making them enough money to buy health insurance, then it isn't a "perfectly fine small business".

 

[milohimself]

If their "perfectly fine small business" isn't making them enough money to buy health insurance, then it isn't a "perfectly fine small business".

I'm going to explain this one last time, they can afford it, they were turned away because of family medical history and the fact that they are both smokers.

 

[CSVol]

Just like JFK and Reagan before him... he cut taxes, people invested and created jobs in the private economy generating wealth, and revenues increased.

Check the record: Reagan raised taxes. The 'dirty little secret' is that trickle down economics doesn't work. The wealthy are not re-investing their gains at this time.

I don't like taxes. Nobody likes taxes. The fact is, with everything else, we're fighting 2.5 wars and nation building in 2 countries. Tax cuts now are inappropriate and irresponsible. We'd be in better shape if Bush had maintained levels to pay as we went instead of playing on credit. If its ok for the old, young and economically challenged to sting then its ok for the rich. And please don't recite the tired mantra of how much the top whatever percent pays in relation to whatever. It'd be easier to type "Let them eat cake."

 

[g8terh8ter_eric]

Can we just cut the amount of government we have, and get within budget?? I have to do this or I don't have a place to live. Hopefully China doesn't come calling anything soon for all the debt we owe.

 

[utgibbs]

Nowhere did I mention raising taxes. Just not an advocate of cuts at this time.

I think any serious attempt to address the budget "crisis" has to include raising taxes.

A return to the pre-Reagan years (which is where the problem started) would be good tonic.

 

[utgibbs]

If their "perfectly fine small business" isn't making them enough money to buy health insurance, then it isn't a "perfectly fine small business".

The Man thanks you for your rapt attention!

I can't believe some of the things I read on here. I must remember: "They're just kids. They're just kids...."

 

[utgibbs]

Just to get this thread back on track:

1. The Proposal for Prosperity is Orwellian in that it is yet another measure, during this latest (and now continual) crisis of Capital, to redistribute wealth upwards.

2. Our health care problems stem from a private system with no incentive for efficiency trying to serve a "market" which isn't a market. Health care costs must be addressed. To date, we have done all the wrong things to address it.

3. Gate's proposal on the military are tiny and unserious. The real discretionary spending is on defense + war (which is off the books). I would lump law enforcement, prisons, judiciary in the same boat requiring massive reductions. The fact that Ryan is rolling out with Gate's proposal is the surest sign this is just playing politics while trying to give another slice of the middle class to elite corporate financial power.

4. Lowering taxes is why we are in this mess (under Reagan). A return to pre-Reagan levels is absolutely required. Again, any proposal not suggesting something along these lines is totally unserious, and is frankly, irresponsible. Any tax reform not addressing, at a bare minimum, simplicity and transparency, is simply not tax reform worth doing. Progressivity should, of course, feature in any reform as well.

As the OP suggests, we feel it worthy to praise anything which comes out to address this "problem." Although we certainly DO need to plan, if we truly care about addressing this issue, the Proposal for Prosperity is certainly - almost laughably - not it. It is simply another way of redistributing wealth upwards to elite economic power.

 

[MG1968]

it's a good thing you're not in charge of anything outside of your own household, gibbs.

 

[utgibbs]

it's a good thing you're not in charge of anything outside of your own household, gibbs.

That's not correct either, MG.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Cutting spending wont help the economy either. You can argue right or wrong on whether these government positions should exist, but a lot of jobs will be lost with cuts to government (none of them being politicians).

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I wonder how many private sector jobs would be affected if we had defense spending cuts.

Not saying that I don't think defense spending should be looked at, but I'm just curious how that would affect the economy. :unsure:

 

[utgibbs]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I wonder how many private sector jobs would be affected if we had defense spending cuts.

Not saying that I don't think defense spending should be looked at, but I'm just curious how that would affect the economy. :unsure:

It is difficult to call them private sector actually. As I've fairly well demonstrated (especially regarding US R&D) in this thread.

However, they would be affected. The Keynesian military wealth redistribution program has been used for the taxpayer to assume costs and risks and then provide the private sector with profits when this development reaches a mature stage.

It absolutely has to be looked at as far and away the largest chunk of descretionary spending. Simply removing the war budget would more than double all proposed cuts being discussed today.

Hence, the Proposal for Prosperity is simply unserious politcal gamemanship; it is not addressing the so-called problem in the slightest.

 

[Weezy]

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I wonder how many private sector jobs would be affected if we had defense spending cuts.

Not saying that I don't think defense spending should be looked at, but I'm just curious how that would affect the economy. :unsure:

I agree. A lot of government spending that is going to be cuts is jobs because it's kind of hard to get your money back on capital costs and money that's been spent. I'd say what 80%, being jobs? I mean that's where I've personally already seen the cuts being made. How much is Oak Ridge going to be hit by this? I'd assume Y-12 is fine, but ORNL is going to be hit hard.

 

[volinbham]

I go back to the 19% issue. Regardless of tax rate we continually float around this revenue to GDP ratio. Raising taxes a bit may help a bit but history shows we cannot radically alter the revenue flows relative to GDP. The majority of of budget balancing has to be in cuts.

Check the record: Reagan raised taxes. The 'dirty little secret' is that trickle down economics doesn't work. The wealthy are not re-investing their gains at this time.

I don't like taxes. Nobody likes taxes. The fact is, with everything else, we're fighting 2.5 wars and nation building in 2 countries. Tax cuts now are inappropriate and irresponsible. We'd be in better shape if Bush had maintained levels to pay as we went instead of playing on credit. If its ok for the old, young and economically challenged to sting then its ok for the rich. And please don't recite the tired mantra of how much the top whatever percent pays in relation to whatever. It'd be easier to type "Let them eat cake."

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

I go back to the 19% issue. Regardless of tax rate we continually float around this revenue to GDP ratio. Raising taxes a bit may help a bit but history shows we cannot radically alter the revenue flows relative to GDP. The majority of of budget balancing has to be in cuts.


Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm not sure history shows any such thing.

The greatest increase in wealth in this country certainly came after WWII until the 1970s. This corresponded with much, much higher taxes than now:

We can see plainly in this graph where our troubles began and what happened. If we truly believed this was a crisis, without question we would be raising revenues in conjunction with cutting the largest discretionary piece of the pie.

 

[volinbham]

What Ryan would appear to be proposing is a cap for each person for Medicare. Now, whether that is a cap on what the insurer pays, or a cap on the amount the government pays for your insurance, matters.

If the former, then that means you can run out of the benefit. Would like to know what it is. I mean, if its millions, it probably doesn't matter. If its $25,000 and the expectation is that each senior buys insurance for anything over that, its a nonstarter.

If the latter, I wonder how that would work. Is that a limit on how much of your premium it would pay each month, i.e. $350 each month such that, if by the time you retire the cost of a decent policy is $600, you have to come up with the other $250? Or is it a lifetime cap, i.e. the government pays 100 % of the premium for you for up to $20,000 and then you are on your own after that?

Just seems like a giant shell game to me. I mean, if the idea is to collect taxes when people are in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, and then use that to pay health insurance premiums for them when in their 70s and 80s, who benefits from that other than the health insurers? Why wouldn't you just sock it away for them to pay for care where there's more efficiency and no profit issue?

Seems odd.

What Ryan is proposing is subsidized private insurance. The amount of the subsidy is what would be capped and I presume it would be means tested in some form.

Benefits include being able to stay with your existing insurance (and associated docs); choosing the type coverage that fits you best as opposed to a one-sized fits all for everyone over 65; allowing insurance carriers to craft programs to meet the differing health needs of a substantial portion of the population; keeps more docs in the loop.

 

[volinbham]

I'm not sure history shows any such thing.

The greatest increase in wealth in this country certainly came after WWII until the 1970s. This corresponded with much, much higher taxes than now:

We can see plainly in this graph where our troubles began and what happened. If we truly believed this was a crisis, without question we would be raising revenues in conjunction with cutting the largest discretionary piece of the pie.

What's missing from your chart is revenues relative to spending and to GDP. When ever we've had balanced budgets or God-forbid surpluses it is because tax revenues were slightly above the 19-20% of GDP and spending was at the same rate. Historically, spending has averaged 20% of GDP but we are closer to 25% now and the the Obama budget projections have us well above 20% for the next decade. Raising taxes will impact GDP growth so while it may feel good the end result will still be a short fall of revenues based on depressed GDP growth.

Bumping up the taxes ain't gonna solve the problem. Spending is the biggest part of the problem.

 

[utgibbs]

What's missing from your chart is revenues relative to spending and to GDP. When ever we've had balanced budgets or God-forbid surpluses it is because tax revenues were slightly above the 19-20% of GDP and spending was at the same rate. Historically, spending has averaged 20% of GDP but we are closer to 25% now and the the Obama budget projections have us well above 20% for the next decade. Raising taxes will impact GDP growth so while it may feel good the end result will still be a short fall of revenues based on depressed GDP growth.

Bumping up the taxes ain't gonna solve the problem. Spending is the biggest part of the problem.

Again, I realize this isn't revenues vs GDP, but your last point is completely debunked by the chart I provided and the history of US growth during this period of high taxes.

Moreover, we can trace the cause of the "problem" back to when we began to significantly decrease revenues under Reagan - which DID NOT fill the Treasury coffers with revenues as advertised. Of course, Reagan did the double whammy of increasing spending as well.

 

[droski]

global competition has nothing to do with flat wages the past 10 years? soley income taxes huh? Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia how about the tax loopholes reagen eliminated? irrelavant right?

 

[utgibbs]

global competition has nothing to do with flat wages the past 10 years? soley income taxes huh? Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia how about the tax loopholes reagen eliminated? irrelavant right?

It's been 30 years of flat wages. There are multiple causes. Neoliberalism and the reactionary assault against labor being two of the most important. Neoliberalism, of course, has several factors in itself: liberalization of capital flight and wild cat speculation, and enabling the "global competition" of which you speak.

Which loopholes, and where did the revenues go? Especially during Reagan's huge spending increases in the Keynesian corporate military welfare state.

 

[tim]

Anyone arguing in favor of higher/more taxes needs an exam. Feel free to give more if you want. Im good
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

Again, I realize this isn't revenues vs GDP, but your last point is completely debunked by the chart I provided and the history of US growth during this period of high taxes.

Debunked by a chart? That is a magical chart.

Find me an economist or anyone else for that matter that believes 90% marginal rates caused growth. Patently absurd.

If we pair 90% marginal rates with annihilation of all global competition (e.g. post WWII) then maybe GDP will surge.

Moreover, we can trace the cause of the "problem" back to when we began to significantly decrease revenues under Reagan - which DID NOT fill the Treasury coffers with revenues as advertised. Of course, Reagan did the double whammy of increasing spending as well.

Yes that's it precisely. :blink:

 

[milohimself]

Anyone arguing in favor of higher/more taxes needs an exam. Feel free to give more if you want. Im good
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I'm of the opinion that under healthier circumstances, we ought to be able to make due with the tax revenues the government already gets, but that the federal government is too big for its britches, and that letting states legislate themselves on more matters within a given set of guidelines and desired outcomes would be a much more efficient model.

 

[utgibbs]

Yes that's it precisely. :blink:

History has another some things to say about your argument:

Moreover, it turns out, especially during the mid-50s and 60s, the growth rates for our "competition" were even more phenomenal.

I know Capitalism thrives on destruction, and we had a phenomenal head start. But everyone knows taxes do not inhibit wealth creation. It is well-worn propaganda utilized by those who have snowballed American citizens into accepting a regressive tax structure in order to support private profits. The proof is, well, the real world as indicated in the graph above.

I would not condone a return to 90%. However, pre-Reagan levels are absolutely prerequisite for any serious solution to this "problem."

 

[utgibbs]

Let's summarize the deficit "problem":

The deficit has been the result of the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan, and the needs to finance a corporate nanny state. The deficit has not been the result of funding PBS or welfare for single moms. It was / is the result of MASSIVE Keynesian inputs to the corporate sectors, first through the Defense budget, and later through a host of other mechanisms, including all of those we enjoy today.

This has seen the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of the world from the lower and middle classes to elite economic power.

Now, when it is time to pay the piper the very people who benefited from the deal are demanding lower taxes while taking the payments mostly from the lower and middle class elderly, with a sizeable dash from front line convivial government services for the rest of the population.

Those who nod approvingly to these events can only be described by one word: Suckers.

 

[joevol320]

Let's summarize the deficit "problem":

The deficit has been the result of the fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan, and the needs to finance a corporate nanny state. The deficit has not been the result of funding PBS or welfare for single moms. It was / is the result of MASSIVE Keynesian inputs to the corporate sectors, first through the Defense budget, and later through a host of other mechanisms, including all of those we enjoy today.

This has seen the most massive transfer of wealth in the history of the world from the lower and middle classes to elite economic power.

Now, when it is time to pay the piper the very people who benefited from the deal are demanding lower taxes while taking the payments mostly from the lower and middle class elderly, with a sizeable dash from front line convivial government services for the rest of the population.

Those who nod approvingly to these events can only be described by one word: Suckers.

how can one debate such stupidy when it comes to economics. the fact is social programs have drained our economy over the past 40+ years and it has done SQUAT to actual decrease these problems.