Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Romney announces VP pick


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
233 replies to this topic

#31 kyledude

kyledude

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,832 posts
  • Joined: 01-December 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 04:59 PM

You mean people still watch the puppet show?

May the best teleprompter win!
  • 0

#32 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:01 PM

You mean people still watch the puppet show?

May the best teleprompter win!

Bread and circus will certainly win.
  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#33 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:01 PM

It's solved problems how? Because you and your father can now afford excessively costly care on taxpayers shoulder so government can continue putting off an ever increasing major problem for the next generation to figure out of how to fix a broken economy and insane deficit? I don't see a solution, I see exacerbation of a problem.

In the US my medication costs me $150 a month even with insurance ($350 without), here in Ontario without prescription insurance it costs me $21 a month, with prescription insurance only a $4 dispensing fee from the pharmacy.

There's a very obvious mess to clean up first.


It's allowed my father to live longer for one thing...without this new insurance plan and Obamacare we were having to pay upwards of $1600 a month for all of his medicines plus treatments. As it stands, he only pays a $30 co-pay each on all of his prescriptions, and while there may be a mess to clean up, and I agree...as far as I and my family are concerned, we're just glad we no longer have to pay the pharmaceutical companies an arm and a ****ing leg so he can continue to live.
  • 1
Posted Image

#34 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:06 PM

It's allowed my father to live longer for one thing...without this new insurance plan and Obamacare we were having to pay upwards of $1600 a month for all of his medicines plus treatments. As it stands, he only pays a $30 co-pay each on all of his prescriptions, and while there may be a mess to clean up, and I agree...as far as I and my family are concerned, we're just glad we no longer have to pay the pharmaceutical companies an arm and a ****ing leg so he can continue to live.

But it's okay that everyone else is now paying the arm and leg for you rather than just holding politicians accountable and electing ones that can both manage a budget and a health care system? Yay Obama.

"As long as I get what I want, who cares who I'm screwing over."
  • 4
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#35 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

But it's okay that everyone else is now paying the arm and leg for you rather than just holding politicians accountable and electing ones that can both manage a budget and a health care system? Yay Obama.

"As long as I get what I want, who cares who I'm screwing over."


This is my father's life and death situation I'm talking about here....you have a lot of ****ing balls making this statement right here....A LOT of balls.
  • 2
Posted Image

#36 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:08 PM

Not that Romney will beat Obama, but too bad his VP pick wasn't running in his place since Romney has far more decision making clout than Ryan would as VP (all Ryan could do is break ties in the Senate).. cutting trillions from the US budget would do them good, but we all know Romney will cut two things, jack and ****.


and the first thing to go with the cuts you are talking about are services to the most vulnerable members of their society .
do you think this is the right thing to do ?
  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#37 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:19 PM

Jeb Bush 2016?
  • 0
Posted Image

#38 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:39 PM

This is my father's life and death situation I'm talking about here....you have a lot of ****ing balls making this statement right here....A LOT of balls.

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.

and the first thing to go with the cuts you are talking about are services to the most vulnerable members of their society .
do you think this is the right thing to do ?

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 05:39 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#39 Dellins

Dellins

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,695 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:40 PM

and the first thing to go with the cuts you are talking about are services to the most vulnerable members of their society .
do you think this is the right thing to do ?


No man you see it is those people's faults they are vulnerable so of course it's the right thing.
  • 0

#40 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:42 PM

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.


I'm finished discussing this with you.
  • 1
Posted Image

#41 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:48 PM

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.


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 ?
  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#42 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 05:51 PM

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 ?

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.
  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#43 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:10 PM

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.


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]
Posted Image







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 .
  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#44 Jaimito

Jaimito

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,694 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:20 PM

Ryan is best known as P90x workout user and

Weinermobile driver

http://www.cnn.com/2...ryan/index.html
  • 0
Posted Image

#45 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:41 PM

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]
Posted Image







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 .

Sounds like just about all Republican candidates for President/VP nowadays..

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 07:42 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#46 Offensive Threat

Offensive Threat

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,071 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:44 PM

The funny thing is that Romney has Latino heritage.


His father being born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico doesnt give him latino heritage

Edited by Offensive Threat, 11 August 2012 - 07:49 PM.

  • 0

Posted Image


#47 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:47 PM

Being born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Mexico doesnt give him latino heritage


I have always been curious as to which number wife Mitt was born to? .. curious is all ..
  • 0
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#48 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:49 PM

Sounds like just about all Republican candidates for President/VP nowadays..


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 ?

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 11 August 2012 - 07:50 PM.

  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#49 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:01 PM

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 ?

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 08:03 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#50 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:04 PM

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?
  • 0
Posted Image

#51 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:07 PM

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?


If an indirect reference to emo offends you, there's this post as a reminder:

If this topic is too emotional for you it's probably in your best interest to avoid it anyways.


Or you can ignore my advice and entertain us with more excessively whiny and sensitive banter.. either way.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 08:08 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#52 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:10 PM

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.


"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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#53 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:19 PM

"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.

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. :lol:
  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#54 Slaytanic Wehrmacht

Slaytanic Wehrmacht

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 861 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:23 PM

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. :lol:


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.
  • 0
Posted Image

#55 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:27 PM

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.


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 ?

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 11 August 2012 - 08:29 PM.

  • 2
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#56 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,011 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 11 August 2012 - 08:50 PM

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 ?


It well may be a classic case of "diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain" .. further diagnosis may be required .. will get back to you .. B)

EDIT: Diagnosis confirmed .. and an insensitive lout as well

Edited by Tearloch7, 11 August 2012 - 08:52 PM.

  • 2
"To Thine Own Self Be True"

#57 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:35 PM

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.

So you run amok on this forum trashing Christians and religion, calling people morons, and report someone for "insensitive remarks"? Teapot meet kettle. :lol:

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.

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 ?

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.

It well may be a classic case of "diarrhea of the mouth, constipation of the brain" .. further diagnosis may be required .. will get back to you .. B)

EDIT: Diagnosis confirmed .. and an insensitive lout as well

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.

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 09:37 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#58 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 09:49 PM

So you run amok on this forum trashing Christians and religion, calling people morons, and report someone for "insensitive remarks"? Teapot meet kettle. :lol:

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.


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 .

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 11 August 2012 - 09:51 PM.

  • 0
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM

#59 Aleksandr Pistoletov

Aleksandr Pistoletov

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,845 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:24 PM

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 .

"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?

Edited by zaibatsu, 11 August 2012 - 10:28 PM.

  • 1
How do you embarrass a crackhead wearing a viking helmet?

How do you roast charcoal? -- Jeff Ross

#60 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,358 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 11 August 2012 - 10:37 PM

"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?


you are the one who seems to be confused , you claimed that ryan would cut defence spending and i have provided information that not only proves your assumption wrong , but indicates he will do exactly the opposite .
but please keep on posting , you have me pissing myself laughing .

Posted Image

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 11 August 2012 - 11:02 PM.

  • 1
"These are the things to keep in mind. These are not just academic exercises. We're not analyzing the media on Mars or in the eighteenth century or something like that. We're dealing with real human beings who are suffering and dying and being tortured and starving because of policies that we are involved in, we as citizens of democratic societies are directly involved in and are responsible for, and what the media are doing is ensuring that we do not act on our responsibilities, and that the interests of power are served, not the needs of the suffering people, and not even the needs of the American people who would be horrified if they realized the blood that's dripping from their hands because of the way they are allowing themselves to be deluded and manipulated by the system."
Noam Chomsky

Jesus didn’t say yes to everyone. I mean Jesus knew that there was a place for everything and it is not necessarily everyone’s place to come to Australia
Tony Abbott......Current Australian PM




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.