Paul Ryan: Romney's gift to Obama

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Under that definition, any insurance is a "ponzi scheme".

How do you figure? One is funded by new people entering the system, the other is funded by the insured. Do you even know what a ponzi scheme is?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't think Obama wants to end his tax cuts for everyone - only for the rich, which is purely symbolic and doesn't do much revenue-wise.

He's certainly not going to do it as part of his "legacy", lest he be remembered as the Democratic president who oversaw the biggest tax increase on the middle class since Ronald Reagan.

A tea party freak like Ryan is much more likely to do it.

Agree with the first part - Obama is not likely to the right thing on letting the tax cuts expire for everyone. That's a pity. However, I disagree with the last statement you make - there's nothing to back that up. Ryan is actually wants to reduce them further - especially at the top. That's quite obviously going to make matters worse. Worse than the status quo and certainly worse than what would be the result if Obama got his way.

[mawilson 2,133]

Agree with the first part - Obama is not likely to the right thing on letting the tax cuts expire for everyone. That's a pity. However, I disagree with the last statement you make - there's nothing to back that up. Ryan is actually wants to reduce them further - especially at the top. That's quite obviously going to make matters worse. Worse than the status quo and certainly worse than what would be the result if Obama got his way.

I think you're wrong about Ryan. Here's what Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, co-chair of Obama's budget-deficit commission, had to say about Ryan and Obama:

“I always thought that I was okay with arithmetic. [Paul] can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion... The President came out with his own plan and the President, as you remember, came out with a budget, and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework, and in that new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10-year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut.”

Interestingly, the past praise for Ryan and his budget plan is a stark contrast to his recent criticism of Mitt Romney's tax plan:

"This month, Romney said that his tax reform proposal is “very similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan.” How I wish it were. I will be the first to cheer if Romney decides to embrace our plan. Unfortunately, the numbers say otherwise: His reform plan leaves too many tax breaks in place and, as a result, does nothing to reduce the debt."

Full text here - an interesting read.

[mox 298]

I'm completely confounded as to why Ryan gets credit for being some kind of budget guru. Radical slashing in discretionary spending, a Medicare overhaul that doesn't really in until 2050, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, Romney has said he will actually increase the military's budget by $2.1 trillion.

I'm not a big fan of how Obama's managed the economy, but every economist worth their salt has agreed that the only way to fix the deficit is, in addition to cutting spending, increasing revenue. Ryan's plan doesn't do that, and Romney's going to more than offset any savings anyway by adding $2.1T to the military.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I think Americans also understand very well that collecting fewer taxes and increasing defense spending further will NOT fix the deficit and debt problem. They further understand that you cannot slash spending enough to make up for that lost revenue and still have the economy grow. Mitt knows this, too, by the way which is why he is already on record saying that any spending cuts must be delayed at least a year. And then there's the issue of "tax cuts for fat cats" (as Mitt has put it in the past when he was just a concerned citizen) in these times that Americans simply won't stand for. You can make an argument - which you yourself have done time and again - that the Bush / Obama tax cuts need to end. All of them. For everyone. That would be a good first step in the right direction to fiscal sanity.

Absolutely you can.

The problem with the current economic state is/has been the house and the senate. If they would pass a budget and a tax code that is for sure into place for at least the next 2-5 years, then the economy would grow once again like it should be.

Many people don't understand that the pulse of Washington dictates how business reacts. You have to give stability. People like to know what's coming. If they don't, you end up with turmoil like we still see today.

You can lower taxes, or you can raise taxes. You can up spending or you can cut spending. The only thing that matters is that you give a good long time frame so that business overall knows what to expect up to a certain point that isn't a mere few months away.

I'm completely confounded as to why Ryan gets credit for being some kind of budget guru. Radical slashing in discretionary spending, a Medicare overhaul that doesn't really in until 2050, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, Romney has said he will actually increase the military's budget by $2.1 trillion.

I'm not a big fan of how Obama's managed the economy, but every economist worth their salt has agreed that the only way to fix the deficit is, in addition to cutting spending, increasing revenue. Ryan's plan doesn't do that, and Romney's going to more than offset any savings anyway by adding $2.1T to the military.

Job growth increases revenue. a STABLE government budget/tax code is what's needed.

We had RECORD revenue into the government in 2007. People seem to ignore these facts. Spending was out of control unfortunately with that money too.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think you're wrong about Ryan. Here's what Erskine Bowles, a Democrat, co-chair of Obama's budget-deficit commission, had to say about Ryan and Obama:

“I always thought that I was okay with arithmetic. [Paul] can run circles around me, and he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion... The President came out with his own plan and the President, as you remember, came out with a budget, and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing. He, therefore, after a lot of pressure from folks like me, he came out with a new budget framework, and in that new budget framework, he cut the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. And, to be candid, this $4 trillion cut was very heavily back-end loaded. So, if you looked at it on a 10-year basis and compared apples-to-apples, it really was about a two and a half trillion dollar cut.”

Interestingly, the past praise for Ryan and his budget plan is a stark contrast to his recent criticism of Mitt Romney's tax plan:

"This month, Romney said that his tax reform proposal is “very similar to the Simpson-Bowles plan.” How I wish it were. I will be the first to cheer if Romney decides to embrace our plan. Unfortunately, the numbers say otherwise: His reform plan leaves too many tax breaks in place and, as a result, does nothing to reduce the debt."

Full text here - an interesting read.

I don't think I am wrong about Ryan. For starters, Ryan made sure that the Simpson-Bowles plan was derailed and never reached Congress for a vote. Plus, Ryan's plan is vastly different from Simpson-Bowles. Simpson-Bowles took a balanced approach - broaden the tax base by closing loopholes, lower rates across the board and generate $1 trillion towards deficit reduction. Ryan's plan would have one Mitt Romney pay less than 1% in income taxes by excluding the sources of Romney's income from taxation altogether while slamming low and middle income families with additional taxes. That is not going to work and it's not going to fly.

Interesting, too, that Bowles gives more credit to the President than to either Ryan or Romney for getting it.

Obama hasn’t gone as far in cutting spending, particularly in health care, as is necessary to stabilize the debt at a reasonable level and keep it on a downward path as a percentage of the gross domestic product. But in contrast to Romney, the president — like the “Gang of Six” and other like-minded members of both parties — has embraced the central principle of Simpson-Bowles: that America will turn the corner on its debt only if Republicans and Democrats come together to support a balanced deficit-reduction plan. For the numbers to work, both parties need to put aside partisanship.

Absolutely you can.

The economists of this world happen to disagree with you.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Mr. Big Dog