Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I'll wait until you can form an argument that doesn't need the crutch of your father to try and gain the upper hand. Funny how I didn't use my sister in California who went through 20 years of fighting leukemia and the extremely tiny odds of surviving relapse after relapse (i.e. bone marrow transplants).. even after beating it is now permanently in extreme amounts of pain, highly susceptible to other forms of cancer, and can hardly drive on a very rare occasion and forget about flying somewhere because of being in a near permanent state of illness (takes, guaranteed, far more meds than your dad).. oh, right, the entire country paying private insurance costs (5x higher than state MediCal) sure is a great idea suddenly? No, it sucks. This is not a good thing, it's a bad thing. If one day government can't afford to subsidize this insane costs what is your dad gonna do then? Maybe the better idea is for people to be more sensible and fix the problem on a broader scale rather than consider the small scale illogical, selfish, one. Now please, get more angry about your dad to avoid rationally discussing the issue. This is easy for what to cut: Defence Welfare (cutting able bodied people who refuse to work) National Parks / Recreation All corporate subsidies Education (college tuition subsidies) NASA (particularly space travel) You've now got 2 trillion dollars cut which leaves a fiscal budget surplus, the surplus being used to pay into interest and into debt to inch toward a elimination of the deficit, overall balanced budget, with consideration then for what taxes and expenditures are necessary for a reasonable health care system. The US is creeping toward interest expenses being as high as (egregiously high) defence expenditures.. expenses in GDP are approaching 100% if not already over it.. not sure what it's going to take for people in the US to figure out the kind of trouble the US is in and why government should be held at gunpoint from spending a penny more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Do you really think the republicans will cut funding to the things you have mentioned as opposed to cutting services to those who need those services the most ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 There are a couple who will, one of them as mentioned is evidently Romney's VP pick, given his history in budget cuts, the other is Ron Paul. Unfortunately Ryan as VP would be pretty handcuffed, as mentioned already (you might have missed it for the emo side show in this page above) the only real authority he would have (since he's no Dick Cheney) is to vote on tiebreakers in the Senate. Otherwise, also as mentioned, Romney is no different than Obama, and while he just might work to repeal Obamacare (he also might not, since he was so fascinated with his own version of Obamacare before), I don't trust he wouldn't find another way to spend funds should rubber stamp Congress predictably authorise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Ryan is best known as P90x workout user and Weinermobile driver http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/11/politics/btn-paul-ryan/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 This does not sound like he wants to cut funding to the things you have mentioned, Paul Ryan's Budget Proposal: Analysis Of The Numbers [uPDATE] This story has been updated to include additional reporting. WASHINGTON -- The big numbers from Paul Ryan’s budget: It will reduce spending by $6.2 trillion over the next decade and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion. It also cuts the top income tax rate by nearly a third, from 35 percent to 25 percent. A big part of the House Budget Chairman's plan rests on the assumption that President Barack Obama’s health care law will be repealed. Over the next decade, that would cut $1.4 trillion in spending alone, according to Ryan's budget. Those savings, however, wouldn't go directly to deficit reduction, because Ryan would also repeal the elements of health care reform that are aimed at raising revenue or reducing costs. The Wisconsin Republican's budget spends less on nearly every major category of the budget. Over the next decade, Ryan (R-Wis.) wants to cut $389 billion from Medicare, the public health insurance program for seniors. Over the same period, Ryan's budget puts $735 billion less toward Medicaid, which benefits Americans too poor to afford private insurance. Discretionary spending on domestic programs is also reduced by $923 billion. Two exceptions are security and defense spending and spending on Social Security, the public pension program for the elderly. Both are kept steady and relatively unchanged from Obama’s proposed budget. A draft proposal from Ryan’s House Budget Committee says that under his plan, the national debt would be $1.1 trillion less than it would be over the next five years under Obama’s budget, and would add $3 trillion less to the debt than Obama’s budget proposal over the next decade. Ryan’s budget proposal would bring the debt held by the public to $13.9 trillion by 2016 and $16 trillion by 2021, compared to $15 trillion in 2016 and $19 trillion in 2021 under the president’s proposal. (The full national debt of just over $14 trillion also includes money owed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but the public figure is the one normally used for budget forecasts.) Though Ryan's plan would reduce the size of the national debt as a portion of the economy - which is the key factor when considering the country's obligations to creditors - the addition of new debt in the short term shows the gap between talk of not raising the debt ceiling by many Republicans and fiscal reality. Ryan’s plan has $40 trillion in spending over the next 10 years compared to $34.9 trillion in revenues. Obama would spend $46 trillion in the coming decade while bringing in $38.8 trillion in revenues. So Ryan's plan would still result in the government spending $5.1 trillion more over the next decade than it brings in, but that’s less than the $7.2 trillion in deficit spending that Obama has proposed. The most fundamental difference between the competing budget proposals is seen in the way they envision the size of government’s imprint in the economy, as measured by spending and revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product. Obama’s budget plan would take spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the total economic output of the American economy, from 25.3 percent this year to the 22 percent range for much of the next decade. But by the end of the 10 year horizon, his plan has spending back at 23 percent. Revenues, meanwhile, which are currently at an anemic 14.4 percent, would creep up to 19 percent by 2015 and then hit 20 percent in 2021. It would be the highest amount of government spending since World War II. During the 12-year presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, spending went from 8 percent of GDP to 41 percent, driven by FDR’s New Deal but even more so by war spending. During Harry Truman's administration, spending was cut in half, from 41 percent of GDP down to 20 percent, and went down further to 18 percent under Dwight Eisenhower. It stayed at 18 percent of GDP through the John F. Kennedy presidency, crept up to 19 percent under Lyndon Johnson, and then went up to 20 percent while Richard Nixon was in the White House. Gerald Ford brought spending back down to 19 percent of GDP, it then went up to 22 percent during Jimmy Carter's term, down to 21 percent under Ronald Reagan's two terms and George H.W. Bush's four years as commander in chief. Bill Clinton brought spending back down to 18 percent of the U.S. economy. No president since FDR has increased spending as a percentage of GDP by more than George W. Bush, taking it from 18.4 percent of GDP to 22.8 percent. Obama’s budget does not show what happens beyond the 10-year window. So, compared to George W. Bush’s spending, he seems to be about on par. However, projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show spending growing at its current pace will grow to more than 26 percent of GDP in 2022, over 32 percent of GDP in 2030, 38 percent of GDP in 2040, and 45 percent of GDP by 2050, with the bulk of that spending driven by ever-rising health care costs. Revenues under CBO projections would not move above 19 percent of GDP, leading to a gap between spending and revenues that would be difficult to sustain. Ryan said a computer simulation program of what would happen in the future “crashes in 2037, because it can’t conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue because of this massive burden of debt.” Ryan’s plan would move spending back to historic levels, keeping it at 20 percent of GDP through 2030, and actually reducing it to under 19 percent by 2040. Ryan’s plan predicts revenues growing to 19 percent of GDP by 2040, allowing the national debt to be reduced over time. The proposal landed in the middle of a busy news cycle where Washington is consumed with a spending fight over the current fiscal year budget, a much smaller portion of government spending that nonetheless will shut down the federal government if it is not resolved by Friday. "Right now we’ve got some business in front of us that needs to be done," Obama told reporters Tuesday afternoon, declining to respond to Ryan's budget in fact it sounds like he wants to help the rich get richer spend more money on the military , and take more away from the have-nots . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offensive Threat Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 The funny thing is that Romney has Latino heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Being born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico doesnt give him latino heritage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Sounds like just about all Republican candidates for President/VP nowadays.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 hang on , you claimed in post no.43 of this thread that ryan would cut defence spending ,i am wondering if you have now changed your mind about this, now that i have enlightened you as to WTF is really going on ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Emo side show eh? Just keep on attacking me bud. If hot air makes a balloon go up, what the hell is holding you down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Emo side show eh? Just keep on attacking me bud. If hot air makes a balloon go up, what the hell is holding you down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 If an indirect reference to emo offends you, there's this post as a reminder: Or you can entertain us with more excessively whiny and sensitive banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 "There are a couple who will, one of them as mentioned is evidently Romney's VP pick, given his history in budget cuts, the other is Ron Paul. Unfortunately Ryan as VP would be pretty handcuffed, as mentioned already (you might have missed it for the emo side show in this page above) the only real authority he would have (since he's no Dick Cheney) is to vote on tiebreakers in the Senate. " "emo side show above" was directed at me, dude. Blow it out your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Haha. I wasn't even in the slightest sense denying that it was a reference to you (it obviously was), indirect simply means you weren't mentioned by name, so the fact that you're getting angry at me over your own lack of reading comprehension only adds to the lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Nowhere did I suggest that Ryan would cut defence (did you even read post 43? or even 38?), and nowhere have I suggested they would cut everything I believe should be cut, this is conjecture made up on your part to fruitlessly make a point without reading people's posts more carefully. Would they cut some or most? Well, Paul would be a better choice for cutting most of the things I want cut, but yeah Ryan would too, just not as much, also Paul being a Presidential candidate puts him in a position to do far more than Ryan could -- as I said, Ryan couldn't do much anyways if he was VP, all VP's can really do to that's useful to exercise their authority is break ties in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 au contraire , when i asked in post no.42 if there were any republicans that would cut funding to defence[amongst other things], you replied in post no.43 that there are a couple who will, and then you said evidently romney's Vp pick will , do you really know WTF you think ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 You've been reported for your insensitive remarks directed towards myself and my family earlier in this thread. I have nothing more to say to you, have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 So you run amok on this forum trashing Christians and religion, calling people morons, and report someone for "insensitive remarks"? Teapot meet kettle. Oh, and for the trifecta, make sure to tell me about how you have nothing more to say to me. It's looking more and more like you have an inability to discuss simple topics with people without getting far too personal and far too emotional. Any reasonable mod might suggest you avoid these discussions if you can't discuss them without crying like a baby because someone debated you on the subject of healthcare and didn't let you use daddy to win an argument. Uh no, you didn't even say defence at all, quote me where if you did, I read your post just fine, if you're going to be a spot picker at very least quit getting your lines crossed. I think it's pretty obvious I'd support someone who reduced the budget even if it wasn't in departments I personally choose. Whether or not he'd reduce defence specifically is a red herring but obviously you pointlessly have an axe to grind so grind away. I'm reporting you to Slaytanic the mods for insensitivity to people with irritable bowel syndrome. It looks like you might have offended them greatly. Btw, pro ad hominem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 are you this obtuse all the time ? in post no .38 you said , this is easy for what to cut , and defence was at the top of the things you listed ,then in post no.42 i asked you if there was a republican that would cut funding to the things you had listed in post no.38 , defence being at the top of your list . you then replied in post no.43 that , evidently romney's VP pick would . as usual in your attempt to appear clever , you have displayed how confused and ignorant you actually are . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 "For the things" is a highly general statement and there's no human that has individual thoughts in complete parallel with a politician.. I'm the obtuse one? You're stretching this far to try and make.. whatever point that is. Enlighten me so we don't waste more time on you arbitrarily pretending like these politicians speak vicariously through me and vice versa. It's very clear I have my opinions on what should be cut, Ryan has his, we generally agree, but even though we don't agree on everything he's still on the right track. Is there something else you're confused by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.