Following up on this morning's coverage, we've had a few hours to review House Republican Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget plan and hear his defense, and there's one question that's proving hard to avoid: this is the guy the Beltway says deserves to be taken seriously?
Well, actually, there's more than one question. It's just the one I keep asking myself.
In terms of the plan itself, Ezra called it "social engineering with a side of deficit reduction," which sounds about right. The budget proposal slashes public spending on domestic programs, most notably on health care, while effectively eliminating Medicare. At the same time, it offers the wealthy another round of deep tax cuts, to be paid for with tax-reform revenue that Ryan refuses to identify.
The House GOP budget plan, in other words, is largely the exact opposite of what the American mainstream wants, and bears no resemblance to the platform the American electorate endorsed in national elections four months ago. It's designed to satisfy folks who believe the wealthy are over-burdened by taxes and struggling families have too much access to affordable health care.
Much of the news coverage this morning seems to be focused on Ryan's plan to balance the budget in 10 years, but I'd hesitate before accepting this premise. For one thing, until Republicans can fill in the magic asterisks on how to pay for their tax cuts, the plan doesn't really balance the budget at all. For another, if the goal were really to eliminate the deficit, Ryan wouldn't be calling for massive tax breaks in the first place.
But if you watch the video above, note how woefully unpersuasive Ryan's defense is. Asked about his motivations, Ryan says the government "just can't" spend more than it takes in, though for the vast majority of American history, we've always spent more than we've taken in.
Asked about his reliance on Obama's tax increases, Ryan says, "We're not going to fight the past," except for the part of his plan that eliminates the portion of the Affordable Care Act that expands benefits, which means he's necessarily fighting the past.
Asked about the 2012 election results, Ryan says he refuses to give up his "principles," will of the voters be damned.
Did the congressman not think these arguments through before his event?
Finally, I'd be remiss if I neglected to mention Ryan's arguments that the American people have to balance their budgets, so Washington has to do the same. Of all the fiscal arguments pushed by the right -- though, in fairness, some on the left sometimes make the same mistake -- this is one of the very worse.
At first blush, I can appreciate its appeal -- the argument has a certain down-home, common-sense sort of quality to it. If American families and American businesses can't run massive deficits and borrow billions from China, the argument goes, why does the American government?
So let's review once more why this is wrong: families and businesses borrow money and run deficits all the time. This is a positive, not a negative, development.
When a family goes to buy a home, for example, its members don't simply write a check; they take out a mortgage. Almost no one can afford to simply and literally buy a home outright, so we take out very large loans, and make payments, with interest.
The same is true when a family wants a car, tackles college tuition, or thinks about starting a small business. American families, in other words, take on debts, some of them huge relative to their incomes, all the time. There's nothing wrong with any of this -- these are just routine examples of people investing in themselves, as they should.
Businesses to do this, too, borrowing money to make capital improvements, expand locations, buy smaller companies, etc. Companies generally create jobs this way, and do so with the blessing of investors.
The government's debts aren't identical, but officials take on debts to invest in things they consider worthwhile, too. A family that relies on student loans to pay for college should be able to relate to a government that relies on loans to pay for public services. The family thinks it'll be worth living in the red for a while, so long as it can make the payments and afford the interest, because they'll be better off in the long run -- and the government believes the exact same thing.
And they're both correct.
Maybe Ryan finds this confusing, or maybe he understands it full well and hopes to fool people. Either way, it's a bad argument.
Leave a Comment:
You know it must be bad if Ezra "I'll sell my soul for access" Klein calls him out.
PS Clinton raised the top marginal rate. W cut it. Luckily, the results of those two actions have gone down the memory hole. Way to go, "liberal" media!!
Speaking of memory holes... see if you can grasp this...
Eisenhower, serving from 1953 to 1961, presided over a top marginal income tax rate of 91%. Reagan, in office from 1981 to 1989, inherited a 70% tax rate and lowered it steadily to 28%. Eisenhower’s presidency saw steady growth, low unemployment, a rising middle-class standard of living and largely balanced budgets. The Reagan years saw growth essentially no better than Eisenhower’s, coupled with high unemployment, stagnant middle-class incomes and a skyrocketing national debt.
So much for Republican/Conservative memories
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/164472/real-tax-debate-eisenhower-vs-reagan/?p=all#ixzz2Pbv4IB7Z
Little Eddie Munster is in desperate need of some Serious Whoopass.
Forget Eddie. It's Rotund Richie Rich who needs some serious weight reduction.
.
Will no one sound the alarm of populist outrage that wall street profits and increase of wealth to the 1% is booming, while the 99% whose wealth has been declining for 30 years are called to make sacrifices. Why should we do penance for sins we didn't commit?
Let's compell penance from the 1% with a percent tax on their wealth. Even if they were only asked to yield their net growth in wealth, without cutting into it would yield us 180 billion per year in new revenue.
Why not. Those who are getting all the benefits can put back into the soil a fraction of what they have taken.
little eddie looks and talks like a person in serious need of mental anti-psychotic drugs. his mannerism is typical of a mental disorder which sysmptoms exhibit a disconnection with reality. this disorder includes rambling, obsession, lack of empathy, shallowness of emotion, high stungness, inability to really connect with life in an appreciative fashion.
this goes deeper than your standard personality disorder. i have mentioned that he is bipolar but i now believe it is much worse than that.
so what the u.s. has now is a nutjob with a yen for power (which is a replacement for normal affection amongst sane persons) who is egocentric and left unchecked - mutates into a cult similar to other nuts like stalin, polpot, netanyahu and other extremists.
There are a slew of economists that talk about economic boosting would do a great deal to close the budget deficit without pain.
http://www.startribune.com/business/193480461.html?refer=y
Yes, a little pain where it would be least felt would get this going. The revenues that were "given up" by TPubs was not really what was on the table and Wall St has boomed. Jobs have improved slightly, so where is all that profit going? Sitting on it.
They accuse Democrats of not wanting to cut spending at current levels. That is not true, it is a matter of what spending and when. Also, alternatives to painful cuts to economy is considered. Also, who insists it has to be all cuts without regard to the benefit of employment gains?
But it is not accurate to say (but they keep saying it) that lowering taxes will create jobs in the US. Maybe try to lure investments with tax code changes to reward good behavior and penalize (a teeny bit) the useless hoarding.
The global economy has not panned out as advertised. Let each country fix their economy, but people need buying power. Then come back to negotiate trade agreements that are more conducive to supporting the flowing of money. That does mean the rich must stop hoarding to the extent they are hoarding just to hoard.
Why reward the hoarding of capital? Start there, let the money be used for investment in economy. That might sting a little at first, but if the money comes back to those that put capital into the economy, then we are no longer stagnating.
The Repubs operate on the assumption that we have to cut spending, but forget the revenues, even that which flows from higher wages and more jobs. Proving their alliance.
The least painful way to close the deficit and stimulate economy is by getting people to work and increase income. Minimum wage increase? But Subway doesn't want to raise the price of sodas or maybe adding avocado. Hey, folks can afford to buy your sandwiches if they have money for extras now and then.
I've been beating the drum for a wealth tax for years. I'm frankly amazed to see it starting to get traction.
The total net personal wealth of the United States was $65T in 2009, and IIRC has actually topped that recently. For the sake of numbers, call it about equal. That means a totally flat 2% tax on net wealth would replace both the personal and corporate income taxes. A 3% tax would not only balance the budget but make rapid payments on the debt (leave the payroll tax out of this for now.)
How would that translate for the average American? Well, the bottom quintile wouldn't pay much of anything for the simple reason that they haven't got anything. Not much difference from now, really. Even most of the top quintile would mostly come out ahead -- I'm doing very well now, with a decent if not spectacular retirement account and a lot of home equity, but my taxes would stay pretty nearly flat.
So on balance, taxes for 98% or so of Americans would either go down or be unchanged. I'll leave to the reader the to fill in the remaining blanks.
For the sake of minimal disruption, the change could be phased in over a period of years. My best (far from expert) guess is that it would actually provide a serious incentive to growth, because instead of providing an incentive to hide revenue from taxes it would incent moving assets to the most productive use -- something economists strongly favor.
Well, the Right has been demanding lower tax rates and ideally a flat-rate tax for a long time. We should give it to them.
DC, I think the framing is everything. The way the Right wants to frame it as envy of the mediocre punishing the excellence of motivated champions. So they prefer to frame it as an assault on personal liberty: a majoritarian oppression of the successful in society. So the framing is important, right?
Now, since you seem to be more wonkish and have thought about this before, I wonder how you answer the "constitutional objection" to direct taxes. Some say that SCOTUS would not strike it down due to the original intention having to do with protecting the interests of slave holding states. Reading the provision, I have some doubts about why the legislation cannot be written to bypass the constitutional argument.
That is, the constitution states a direct tax is ok if all states pay equally. So what is the big deal here? You have a 1%'r with assets in a dozen states, another with assets in another dozen states. If the law is written calculating the state proportion of aggregate wealth of the nation's 1% most wealthy. So if Wyoming holds only .5% of the population, then those assets in Wyoming are taxed at a variable rate so the aggregate tax contributed from assets in that state do not exceed .5%. As a math detail, the indivdiual's state rate would not be a fixed .5% of their total capital tax- it would also be proportionate to the percentage of their wealth held in that state.
.
You following me? Essentially the whole strategy is an accounting gimmick. That is, it avoids the constitutional question by producing an accounting report that shows how no state contributed more than its equal share of the tax. Under the hood, the state tax percentages for each state that each individual's wealth in that state is being taxed on is recalculated each year to make it balance out. None of these percentages make any difference to the taxpayer, because their Wealth still gets taxed at 2%. The report simply does the hocus pocus to show that the overall "contribution" each state makes is proportionate to their population.
.
So if you have any thoughts on this or other answers to the constitutional objection, I'd be interested in any thoughts you have time to jot down.
John, the easy answer to the Constitutional objection is to keep it as an income tax, but one which taxes income based on wealth. We already modify the income tax based on all kinds of stuff, so an explicit "net wealth" factor would be pretty safe.
Might have to stop at zero, though -- park all of your wealth somewhere that it draws no earnings and you might avoid the tax. Pretty stupid, though, since absent investment it's going to be attritted by inflation in addition to opportunity cost. Mitt Romney might prefer to lose money rather than pay taxes, but anyone with serious money can get more than 6% returns in constant dollars, so trying to avoid a 2-3% tax by taking a 2% annual loss to inflation vs. a 6% annual return on blue chips is just a way of throwing away 5-6% of your money every year.
I think it could be sold pretty easily to the public if it's put in terms of replacing the income tax with a low rate flat tax. Use the Right's talking points to sell it, in fact.
Part of this comes from the observation that between Reagan and Bush, the Right has sold people on the idiotic notion that the current tax levels we have are too high already, but the public wants the services they have and don't want to cut them. Which means that barring the futile pursuit of sticking it to the Welfare Queens, we're not going to get enough revenue from the income tax to even keep the infrastructure we have serviceable (the electric grid alone is costing us $150 billion per year due to preventable failures. Fixing it would cost three times that -- a deal that any business would jump at even if interest rates were many times what they are.)
So change the game. Substitute a wealth tax for (at least some of) the income tax. Tax carbon and rebate most of it (75%, say) to the public on a pure per-capita basis. That kind of thing. Raise revenues, but do it in a way that the enormous majority of the public will like.
Thanks. Thought provoking ideas. Especially I am intrigued by 1) leveraging the flatter/ simpler tax meme and 2) piggybacking income tax.
.
I would like to see our elected officials debate like this!
John Messerly,
I would like to see the cap on the payroll tax at $400,000.00 a year. Why should those making UNDER $100,000.00 a year have all the burden? I am sick of seeing the wealth get off nearly Scott-free.
I disagree. I think the cap should not be increased- it should be eliminated entirely. Further, the payroll tax should be graduated: People should pay a lower percentage if they have a lower incomes, and a higher percentage for higher incomes.
It is the same progressive principle as the Equity Tax: People should pay back in according to the degree of benefits they are receiving back from society. Due to severe income disparity in our country, it is fair that those of us who have a skill set that gives us disproportionate rewards at the highest income levels, we should pay payroll tax at a higher percentage.
As a software engineer, I received generous compensation, and I would have thought it completely fair if I paid payroll tax at double what those receiving a median salary. Some of my conservative friends suspect I feel that out of guilt, but I think they are the ones conning themselves. As far as the bulk of my working peers were concerned, we understood the playing field was and still is tilted heavily towards people with particular skill sets such as mine that generate significant profits for their companies. It is not that other people aren't expending as much or greater effort or that they don't have important skills.
It seems to me I need the good cobbler just as much as he needs my software. His creativity may be greater, and the training necessary may be greater to make shoes as excellently as he does. The compensation is mostly an accident because my "shoe" is not for one person, but is consumed by millions. So I have written code that is on hundreds of millions of computers world wide. Similarly, MSNBC pundits are watched daily by millions of consumers. They get compensated well due to how many consumers that technology allows them to simultaneously serve. Sure, they are good at what they do, but a seamstress may do work twice as clever as theirs, yet receive barely poverty level wages for their work.
So should I pay payroll at a significantly higher percent?
You bet. Because it's fair.
John, the extreme example of your "how much does my work replicate without any additional value added by me" is the one between the star athlete and the star surgeon. The surgeon has invested vastly more time, money, etc. into becoming the best at his trade compared to the athlete. However, the surgeon can by the nature of his work save only one life at a time.
So we end up paying the entertainer enormously more than the one who saves thousands of lives.
Spot on, Benen. You deserve a cookie for that phrase.
Put it on the floor and vote on it.
Let's see the GOP put their votes where their mouth is
To be fair, they will. Just like the last two times.
Apparently they're hoping that people will forget between now and next November.
D.C., the reason Republicans will vote for it is they know it has absolutely no chance of becoming law. But they will be able to go to the Tea Party and say that they tried ot pass a balanced budget but that Socialist President doesn't want to save the country. Also, they are worried about their jobs because if they do anything to try and work with the Democrats to get something meaningful done, they will be primarried from the right.
Hey, the further right he makes it, the further right the adult-in-the-room Democrats will go to "get a deal." Now, who are the idiots?
Think. Why do we have the sequester?
Not really. I mean, by that logic we would have had actual budgets for the last 3 years. If you look, you'll see there have been no budgets agreed to by both branches and signed by the President. Primarily because the Republican House is filled with nuts.
You make absolutely no sense and do not address the points. It's not about budgets; it's about positioning. Why do we have the sequester? Why did we have the fiscal cliff? Is the country more right after each? Answer those and you have the answer. Obama lost each of them, and the country went further right each time. Republicans are obstinate because it works toward their objectives and Democrats are too damned stupid to learn to say "no."
And liberal bloggers can't get their big heads out of the rabbit hole Republicans dug for them. They're too mesmerized by all the freaks and hallucinations to take the time to tell different stories from the ones Republicans want them to focus on.
Just another day in the Republican rabbit hole.
I agree with Disgusted, nice guys finish last.. I don't think we need any more examples but I can guarantee we're going to see some more from President Nice Guy!
Disgusted: You always try to dismiss the thoughts and views of others, and frame the "discussions" with insults and canards to make your broken record complaints about each "deal". The country is not more "right" after the fiscal cliff deal, there was a tax increase on some of the rich. Was it perfection, of course not. And budget deadline deals have to be made, or crap happens. The Republicans hold some power, and you don't want to admit or deal with it. That leaves those of us who are realistic and serious about the country to do the dirty work while you complain like a broken record and hurl insults from the peanut gallery. Go right ahead, just be aware that people are in on your oft repeated "points", and they degrade each time you trot them out...
"...this is the guy the Beltway says deserves to be taken seriously?"
Can you say Trojan Horse, no really. Paul Ryan is the shiny toy (white, male, blue eyes, rich, white) that the corporate owned media wants to distract US from the conversations about the issues that need to be had. At best the distraction is to keep Americans from focusing on POLICY - you know the things that have been enacted, are being enacted/proposed that are designed to pillage from working Americans to the Oligarchy.
He has rolled out this dung heep and says everything with a straight face in the hopes that his boyish charm will lull the natives into allowing the GOTP to enact their destructive policies - policies that won't balance shyt! Because the GOTP are bankrupt of ideas, real policy proscriptions that work for working Americans, and are bent on taking this nation back to the 1860's they need to be removed thru the ballot box from public office, permanently!
yep. a flat out wallstreet thievers con game to steal from the population whom they disrespect and will kill for profit.
Well, when the old people and "looters" (as I heard poor referred to) just die and let them have their oligarchy, that is paradise for those like Paul Ryan.
The nun, Sister Simone had a point. He is Catholic, yet he disdains and further punishes the least among us as not abandoning his/their principles". Divided government does not mean you must take away from the elderly and poor! Geez, which principle means the most to Paul Ryan, a Catholic. That would be stepping on fingers of poor, but getting deep into womens' private lives is OK by him.
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/2012/gop-presidential-candidates/paul-ryan.html
I feel what Ghandi meant when he said "I like your Christ, but not his Christians" - people like Lyin Ryan are worse than hypocrites, because they just use the "G-d is the center of my life" argument as a club to shut people up. What needs to be asked is how does your "faith" square with disenfranchising the poor - cause do you really think that's "what Jesus would do"? And make sure to press him for a "serious answer".
You cannot be a Christian and disregard the poor as these Republicans do. Christians are commanded to care for the poor.
It is not a suggestion.
ryan is easy to figure--he believes his own b.s. what's hard to figure and harder to accept is how the main stream media insists on perceiving him as knowledgeable and serious. he is neither.
isnt that the most incredible thing? how the pimped out media sold dumya's war? and now they lend credence to pos ryan? the msm has no regard for what is good and has now simply decided to dismiss their crap as entertainment.
u.s. media will not fight for a 3rd party. they want to pander to the repuber thieves because they will turn any trick for a buck.
There ain't no f*cking main stream media.
There ain't no f*cking liberal media.
There is only The Corporately Owned Media.
So S P is calling her employers and her preferred occupation "lame". Yep.
It's definitely corporate owned media, all of it. We have to dig around to find the news and facts.
Old habits are hard to break. But, let's get back into the habit of doing Journalism without the logo on it, anyway?
The magic ingredient is "Credit Card Interest". Whenever people talk about household debt, the first thing that pops into one's mind is running up the credit card and failing to make payments on the 18% finance charges. The association is natural and it's the basic deception behind the comparison. Note: The US government doesn't pay 18% on bonds!
thieves need to feed their wealth monster. so the alternative to pumping war to destroy to loan to build is to instead wallstreet thieves raise prices of life support necessities then make the claim that they need to subsidize the money they lose by those who dont pay up.
it's not the new way of how to rob populations but it is in their bag of tricks. i predict they will nullify bankruptcy, establish debtors prison, and enforce forced labor.
Paul, that is so true. The government doesn't pay hardly any interest on their debt. Considering the debt is around $17 TRILLION now and climbing every year by another Trillion it is definitely a good thing it isn't anywhere near 18%. Yes the comparison to a credit card is flawed, but the amount owed (even with 0% interest) is what concerns me.
I just do not see any meaningful reduction in our deficits in the near future and that will only saddle our future with more debt.
Skip: You make your own choice to ignore the substantial deficit reductions already made, and you also choose to ignore the fact that the Democrats are far more serious about the deficit than the Republicans. Because you have made those choices, your points don't resonate as much as they would if you were honest IMHO...
Lebowsky,
The deicit reductions are are just that, reductions in the deficit. They do not touch the debt. In fact, although I am happy to see the reduction in the annual deficits to under $1 Trillion, there will still be hundreds of Billions added to the debt each year. No one is really serious about the debt I am afraid when the annual deficits will still be over three quarters of a Trillion a year. Even if they reduce down to $500 Billion, in ten years the debt will be over $21 Trillion. So maybe you think my points don't "resonate", but too me all these "cuts" and "reductions" are window dressing. The debt will not go down for a very long time....if ever.
And BTW, if you think the Democrats are more serious, fine. To me there still is a long way to go and I really don't care what party actually does the heavy lifting. This is not about who can do it better...just do it.
Skip: "Window dressing"... I guess if the window you are looking out from is one of comfort, you would think the layoffs are insignificant. Tell you what, do a better job getting like-minded deficit hawks out to vote, and maybe the slugs you vote in will do better. My guess is the minute the folks you think will help out get into power, they start telling the truth and stimulating the economy which will create jobs...
http://phd9.blogspot.com/2012/10/as-long-as-national-reporters-are.html
When the MSM finally declares the news of the day - Paul Ryan's fantasy budgets are wasting our time as a people and a nation - I will begin to listen to their reporting on this matter!
Paul Ryan is not a serious politician willing to do the people's business. He's merely a rich man's apologist hoping to cash in on his efforts to push the rich man's agenda! -Kevo
check it out! the reality is that paul ryan gets to be the wealther thiever's favorite pimped out which means he gets invited to their "special parties" which means that he gets to go to those parties and have "special fun" made available to him. my bet is, he does not take his wife on these occasions.
i oughta know.
Paulie Rayn, has not held a non political job since the Wiener Mobile.
His entire time on earth so far, seems to be as a son of privilege, not surprising then as an adherent of the unproven/disproven philosophies of both Ayn Rand and Jack Kemp, he has been a very visible but shallow empty suit out to protect what's his.
Civic responsibility, especially for those of less fortune be damned.
Interesting that he continues taking a stance against his professed faith as we recall his fake chores in the soup kitchen, or the schooling Nuns on a bus offered to him.
It seemingly proves he's capable of serving his more tightly held beliefs, in money and power, than of his professed religion.
At this rate the GOP congress is being run by those elected without a sense of or an iota of civic understanding, and he's fallen into the role of leader of the asylum.
I always say, belief is for those who do not understand, and faced with logic Paulie wears his belief in the absurd as the lapel pin of the week.
He presents rectitude, chattering in sound bites under the guise of being knowledgeable when self promotion is all he has ever accomplished, no meaningful legislation, just the puffery of station practiced and rehearsed but a universe away from enforcing comity and understanding.
paulie boy wants you to pay him a big salary for doing nothing. he thinks he is worth a lot of money to dream up what any less educated third grader can do. he gets angry when you reject his ideas as insane.
jerks like him are very common in third world dictatorships. the operating environment provided by wealther thieves actively recruit gofers like him.
For the "headline only" crowd in the TPub realm:
Ryan makes....
No cuts to the Pentagon Budget, in fact he increases their budget over the next decade. What about all the waste in the Pentagon Budget, like marching bands or NASCAR sponsorships or the $50 billion in cancelled weapons programs -- caused by industry business practices -- that contractors get to keep.
I'd like to see them look for things that are not going to hurt workers. I did read about the workers in AL at the plant making cuts to hours and lay off temp. employees just before sequester deadline.
OK, how many people would lose in this cut or that cut. How do we find the cuts to make?
Well, maybe they ought to start sending a percentage of dividends from contract companies to the federal, state or local government that hires them?
Would that idea pass muster?
What?!?! No, they wouldn't do that?!?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/03/04/defense-dividends-and-sequestration-what-investors/
My Dad worked for a defense company, a well known one. I don't know if people would lose much in 401Ks. But there may be some way to say, those dividends need to be taxed a little bit more to "get us through this" and maybe look somewhere besides cutting jobs to "fix stuff".
As usual, no one askes for specifics from this guy. He throws out general phrases, broad brushes plans to save America, and uses sweeping words like principles. And in the end, he gives no specifics and is asked for none.
No wonder if he is the darling of WA since those that surround Ryan are terrified of asking any questions that might accidently draw the curtain back to show what he is really doing: an government paid elitist working to suck the life blood out of the working class safety nets.
Goober Pyle Ryan has no principles.
He may be the "darling of DC" but not WA. I doubt that WA (the State of Washington) holds him in very high regard. At least, not based on last year's election results.
there is a saying amongst con artists like him.... "dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull@!$%#".
I read "WA" to mean "Wealthy America." Meh. Maybe just me...
Ryan has one principle: protect the wealthiest Americans. Period. Other than that, he has no principles. He is just like his heroine, Ayn Rand. She was an amoral libertarian. Some might say an anarchist. She was also an atheist who believed there were no moral rules for her and she acted accordingly.
So debt is bad, here's some bold policies to encourage that idea.
Remove all interest deductions for businesses and for the American people. Mortgage deduction gone, interest on development for your business gone.
That closes a big loop hole, doesn't "raise taxes" while it increases revenues and it fits nicely within the fiction that American people have to balance their budgets.
You can drive a truck through the holes in the logic of his budget policies.
Individual households don't "balance their budgets." They take on long-term indebtedness often, for many reasons. Their cash flow may, sort of, have to balance. The annual budget doesn't.
How well does a family balance its budget in a year where it goes out and purchases a #300,000 home when its annual household income is around $75,000? Or when it purchases a new car for $30,000 on a five-year auto loan?
People take on mortgages, credit card debt, installment loans, and other debts all the time. Sometimes their total liabilities increase over the course of a year, sometimes they decrease. The big difference is that the U. S. Government can't purchase things on time. Even a building or highway with a 50-year (or more) life must be paid for currently, or at least over the course of the construction period.
matches the gaping hole in his head where most people keep their brains. also matches the gaping hole in his chest where most people have a heart. also matches the gaping hole in his groin where most men can at least claim they are men.
Steve: You must want to destroy the home sales market if you are serious about just ejecting the mortgage tax deduction.
Dude, No the point was that almost all American's use leverage to increase their wealth over time, and this is the growth basis of most businesses.
To suggest that our government should not also do this is ridiculous.
My point was to be as absurd as their claim that "American's have balanced their own budgets" when we all know that virtually everyone, and every business uses leverage to build their future, and that is how we grow our economy.
If they believe the lie that there is no need for economic leverage then why do we incentivize interest expenses with tax credits?
As much as we see what is going on here, there are hundreds of millions of people who still don't see this. These aren't the 1% or 2% folks, these are middle Americans.
I just don't get it. What is it going to take for these people to understand the damage this would cause?
Even for the tea party types. How many of them are old, white, retired people who were standing there with their signs, "Don't touch my Medicare" or "Don't touch my Social Security"? Yet, they lap this stuff up.
I know. You CAN fool some of the people all of the time.
those "some of the people" are either too lazy to read and figure things out, or greedy thieves like him who want to benefit by hooking up with him as contributing pirates, or, they believe that you can get blood from a stone and are too utterly stupid to realize that they are the real target of his insanity.
The best sigh at a Tea Party rally was "Keep government hands off my Medicare.".
One reason why the old Tea Party white people don't care: "They got theirs, to hell with everyone else."
Most of that Tea party crowd doesn't care what happens to Medicare or Social Security, as long as they get theirs until they die. And Paul Ryan feeds into the by never proposing any change to people over the age of 55.
They also don't understand anything about federal appropriations/budgeting...and they also generally will disagree with their own proposed ideas when pressed about them, because they don't actually understand what they are proposing/endorsing.
Douchebag! Add loser to that as well. These guys are sociopaths and the corporate media continues to enable them to spread falsehoods in the guise of "principles". Paul Li'an wouldn't know a principle if he had one shoved up his a$$.
you cannot shove a principle up pauly lyin'baby's a$$ because he has a really really big head and he has put his own head up his own a$$ and there is no room for anything else.
Senator Paul Ryan is suffering from an acute case of dummassiosis, symptoms include extreme refusals to accept "NO!" for an answer. Treatment; Exclusive rest in Janesville Wisconsin for approximately 4-ever.
senator ryan? senator? while i will admit there are many repuber crapheads in the senate, lyin'ryan aint there.
i would like to know why the pimped out media even gives this toad-brain airtime without calling him a toad-brain?
#17.1 joseph common,
"Toad- brain" is a compliment when it comes to Ryan. Toads have more brains in their warts than Ryan has in his egotistical head. He actually thinks his insane plan will be popular with America!
Yes, Paul, we are all eager to be bankrupted! LOL
My God, this man is delusional and unbalanced. I think he actually believes that! He is truly dangerous.
That light at the end of the tunnel is Ryan's express, coming at ya! Aren't you all happy?
The hired muscle for the Republican organization, Paul Ryan (disguised as a budget guy).
Did this guy actually drive the Weinermobile or was it just named after him?
but, but, but...
The corporately owned media says that Ryan's plan will balance the budget in 10 years and that the democrat plan will not! I know that this has to be true because CBS (corporate broadcasting system) says it is so.
The real question that the corporately owned media will NOT ask directly is "Why are the middle class fighting so hard to not become lower class?". Everyone knows that the only problems with the ameriKan economy are that the wealthy do not have enough money, we have too large a middle class, and the poor do not pay enough taxes.
CORPORATE MEDIA IS LYING AGAIN. by their logic the @!$%#-for-brains like pauly and his repubercons insist that instead of increasing CASH RECIRCULATION into the economy you can instead kill people off to fit the balance of cash remaining after they have stolen large protions of it for their pimps. it's how brain-damaged thieving pimped-outs like him think.
Obama say--Big deal! Bill Clinton really balanced the budget but George Bush thought the government couldn't be trusted with all that money and, as soon as he could, reduced revenue and increased spending. I shouldn't say it, I suppose, but I'm not sure I can trust these guys. (obamasay.com)
If Chris Wallace tells you that repeal of the ACA "is Not going to happen" Then you should listen If that doesn't convince you seek help.
I will note that not only do companies do this, but those who don't run a serious risk. A company that's too flush risks being the target of a leveraged buyout, where its own cash assets are used as collateral to pay for the loans that buy its stock.
Anyone curious about this could study the history of Bain Capital, for instance.
So, bottom line: healthy businesses are generally careful to keep a fair bit of debt or at least to minimize their reserves of cash and equivalents. In contrast, the Federal Government should never do such a thing and if a real businessman were President, would make sure that we never did. Or something like that -- I confess I never got an explanation of how that worked.
it all seems so very confusing or incongruous but here is the reality. capitalism works for business. socialism works for people. the inconguity here is the trespass of the "purpose" of cash as both a measure of business success and as the token for life support of all individuals in the society.
when business takes over govt (oligarchy) or govt takes over business (communism) you have a real problem.
democracy is a method, not a construct. without socialism to "retype/recast" cash to life support, everything falls apart.
to understand this, you must see and decide who or what is subject/subordinate to what. the starter question for this predicament is this "do you own the economy or does it own you?".
joseph common,
Yes, unregulated, rampant Capitalism is a disaster for the average person. You need a mix of socialism and regulated Capitalism.
We especially need socialized medicine as other civilized, industrial countries have had for decades.
If we want a pro-growth tax code, then all we gotta do is tax the rich.
aka RECIRCULATE CASH back into the economy. ps.... growth is a fraud. it is a fiction. it does not really exist except as an illusion that rationalizes 'bigness' which is really the bad result of 'hording'. like cancer, wealth will feed on people and render them victims and kill them for profit.
Ryan has a right to propose whatever wacky budget plans he wants, and American voters can approve them if they want - in fact they returned a Republican majority to the House, so it is misleading to say that the extreme right-wing approach has been rejected. Polls are for fun - elections are where the real desires of voters are expressed.
Of course the American people are not getting an accurate picture of what Ryan and Republicans really intend to do, because the media keep mindlessly repeating the absurd claims of politicians rather than judging them on their records, and for whatever reasons puff up the reputation of Ryan as someone who understands numbers despite the absurdity of his plans.
Well, Ryan has followed the GOP's first rule with his so called "budget": First, do harm. Second, double down on the harm. Third, forget that numbers are absolutes (2 + 2=4 every time) and just sort of play with them a bit. Fourth, forget what the public wants or the SCOTUS ruled, try again to repeal America's only hope for affordable health insurance.
Fifth, Above all, protect the rich and rob the poor. That's the T-Party Republican's platform and everything else they do or say is BS.
Their agenda is to have a two class society: Poor and very, very rich. They've been working on this since Reagan and it has been very successful. If you have doubts about its success, check the video on the following link.
http://ecolocalizer.com/2013/03/03/video-shows-us-wealth-gap-is-now-so-huge-that-it-soars-off-charts/
American voters returned a Republican majority to the House
Yes, but.... in total, the Democratic candidates got more votes than the Republican candidates...
The Republicans hang on to the House by effective gerrymandering in rust belt and Midwestern states [For example, the GOP won 53% of the vote in Ohio and won 12 of the 16 races (75%)] and by building a huge [somewhere beyond 50+] advantage in the south....