GOP budget requires raising debt limit

Tagged:  

Paul Ryan's budget proposal requires raising the debt limit.

"It says that in fiscal year 2012, the appropriate debt limit would be $16.2 trillion — nearly two trillion higher than it is now. In 2021, according to Ryan’s proposal, the proper debt limit would be $23.1 trillion — nearly $9 trillion higher than the present."

Funny stuff. The GOP is holding the economy hostage over the debt limit. And their own proposal requires raising the debt limit. These people are very confused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/paul_ryans_own_propos...

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Left this out:

"In fairness to Republicans, they can point out that putting a debt ceiling hike in the Ryan proposal along with entitlement changes and other proposals to reduce spending dovetails with the GOP’s public position, which is that Republicans will support raising the debt ceiling as long as it’s packaged with major fiscal reforms."

Oh and BTW....American Oppose raising debt ceiling by a 2 to 1 margin:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20056258-503544.html

Despite Obama administration warnings that failing to do so would devastate the economy, a clear majority of Americans say they oppose raising the debt limit, a new CBS News/New York Times poll shows.

Just 27 percent of Americans support raising the debt limit, while 63 percent oppose raising it.

Eighty-three percent of Republicans oppose raising the limit, along with 64 percent of independents and 48 percent of Democrats. Support for raising the debt limit is just 36 percent among Democrats, and only 14 percent among Republicans.

Seven in ten who oppose raising the debt limit stand by that position even if it means that interest rates will go up.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

As long as we're discussing polls, you left out the fact that most Americans (by a wide margin) oppose the GOP's fiscal reforms you mentioned. Eighty percent oppose cutting Medicare & Medicaid. But most Americans DO support raising taxes on the wealthy. Maybe the GOP should concentrate their efforts there.

Pink Slip

When discussing polls especially what you claim pink, I know that you realize a questions wording can be a factor and change/produce results. And I know you are probably well aware of the several polls which refute what you claim meaning that question is HIGHLY reliant upon how it's worded.

MikeyA

Yes MikeyA. I know that when asked the general question, "do you support spending cuts" most Americans would probably say yes. However, when it gets specific most Americans oppose Medicare & Medicaid cuts, and support raising taxes as a way to close budget gaps.

Pink Slip

"However, when it gets specific most Americans oppose Medicare & Medicaid cuts, and support raising taxes as a way to close budget gaps." Well only if you word it as Medicare & Medicaid cuts which itself loads the question.

My point. From NBC/WSJ poll http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/_Today_Storie... (Favorable Democratic lean with 38 D/19 I/ 32 R for D+6)

Note Q34a Which states "There is currently a proposal to change how Medicare would work so seniors being enrolled in the program ten years from now would be given a guaranteed payment called a voucher from the federal government to purchase a Medicare approved coverage plan from a private health insurance company. Do you think this is a good idea, a bad idea, or do you not know enough about this to have an opinion at this time?" The result is Good idea 21% Bad idea 22% No opinion 56% not the slame dunk you claim.

Additionally Q33 states "Do you feel that Medicare needs a complete overhaul, that it needs major changes, that it needs minor modifications, or do you think it is pretty much okay the way it is?" with 44% wanting major changes or a complete overhaul vice 38% who only want minor changes and 15% who want no changes.

And a CBS/NYT poll supports restructuring 47% -41%. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/21/politics/main20056282.shtml

And while ABC/WT http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_04172011.html opposes cuts 78%-21%. It is in favor of the voucher system 65%-34%.

The last two I didn't get into specifics on for brevity sake but feel free to scrutinize them and the wording of them.

MikeyA

You might want to check that last poll again. It indicates that 65% want Medicare to remain the same rather than go to a voucher system--the opposite of what you claim.

Your point leads to this conclusion--if the GOP's budget calls for Medicare cuts, they will simply sell it as "tweaks" or ""minor changes".

Pink Slip

You're right, I stand corrected. In my flurry of posting the data I misread the question posed in the survey. But hey that's why I put my sources in there (as my professors always taught me) and I try to not make baseless claims.

But the major point of my argument still stands. That the polling data does not definitively say how the public feels. The wording of it highly affects the results.

Additionally, of the polls I've cited none of them are considered to be "GOP friendly". Pollsters like Rasmussen and ARG which use likely voter screens vice all adults or registered voters tend to lean more in the GOP view and since every pollster has found Republican voters to still me more enthusiastic thus far (even the ones with huge Dem weighting) the likelihood of the elections from the results of this debate at this time will most likely favor the GOP (before we discuss the possible losses due to the Senatorial cycle).

MikeyA

"But the major point of my argument still stands. That the polling data does not definitively say how the public feels. The wording of it highly affects the results."

Right. And if the wording is "Do you support Medicare cuts", Americans mostly say no. The tricky part is determining if legislation actually does this or not--it depends on what the politicians are trying to sell us.

Pink Slip

Sorry, Pink Slip, but elected officials have every duty to ignore the polls when those polls indicate that Americans are delusional.

It's been well documented that you could tax the wealthy at 100% (taking every dollar of their incomes) and only reduce the current budget deficit projection by 50%. Clearly this is not a problem that taxation solves. No, clearly this is a problem that CUTTING SPENDING solves.

I know you Liberals hate to hear that said. That's why I love to say it.

The problem is not income. The problem is spending. For the 3rd year running, 40% of the federal budget under Democrat "leadership" involves borrowing. The federal government is obviously broke and is living far above its means.

So budget cuts are necessary, not due to ideology, but due to that one thing that Liberals hate: Mathematics.

And when you look at the federal budget and put your Liberal mental illnesses aside for once, you see immediately that war and entitlements consume the vast majority of the budget. Therefore those have to be cut. The largest sectors of spending are the natural places to start cutting. Note well that that means cutting Social Security, and Medicare, and the DOD.

Feel free now to jump up and down like most Liberals do, squawking and screeching about how fucking unfair and unrealistic this all is. But you'd be wrong to do so. Math says you'd be wrong. This is not a matter of opinion or ideology. IT'S MATH.

Someone is delusional here alright. It's you GZ. You can't seriously think you can balance the budget with spending cuts alone. It's going to take a combination of cuts and, yes, tax hikes. Anyone who tells you differently is either a drooling Ayn Rand ideologue, or they're simply lying. Revenues are at their lowest point in 50 years. THAT combined with a rather LARGE recession has helped create large deficits. It's not that difficult to understand.

Yes, healthcare costs have to be contained. In fact, if the US spent as much on healthcare as other wealthy countries, we'd have LARGE budgets surpluses. Luckily, the healthcare bill that was passed (while real shitty in some aspects) is projected to decrease the deficit.

And social security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit. It's a fully funded program. Lumping it with Medicare and other spending is simply dishonest.

Here's your MATH---higher revenues and lower spending equals lower deficits. That's not "liberal". It's rational.

Pink Slip

You can't seriously think you can balance the budget with spending cuts alone.

That's why I love you Liberals. You say the most absurd shit imaginable, and because it's Liberal Doctrine, you're completely oblivious to the absurdity.

The federal government is now spending about $1.68 for each $1.00 of revenue, hence is borrowing that 68-cent margin. The real-world math that you Liberals never want to address, simply says that you just don't borrow each of those 68 cents. That means that instead of a budget of $3.7 trillion, you only have the income-matching budget of $2.2 trillion. And that means all of those subordinate budgets get cut about 41%. You don't even have to send out a memo (which is one of the ways the government runs up costs). The President just goes on TV and tells each federal budget director that "you're getting 41.23% less this year than you planned for".

Of course, you Liberals think this is impossible, since that would massively undermine your Communist agenda of inflating social programs until they swallow all economic activity.

I must now repeat: When your budget is over by some percent, then a mere cut across the board (of such a large set of budgets, like what the government is) will bring that budget back into balance.

IT'S MATH, fool. But your ideology stands in the way. You can't even see or understand that IT'S MATH.

I'm sure you fucking Liberals would love to just keep raising taxes. But the working man is finding about 40% of his yearly income is stolen each year via all taxes and fees levied by all levels of government (federal, state, county and municipal). You're already taking nearly half of his pay. If he made the national household median income this year of $50000, then you're only leaving him $30000 to live on. So what you Liberals are really saying is that you need another $5000 a year out of him, to reach that glorious 50% level of outright THEFT. So he ends up with only $25000 a year to live on.

{pause}

Why do you fucking Liberals think you lost the House of Representatives? It's because that the people of the United States know that you're trying to take all of their income via that previously-described process, and just put them on the dole, dictating to them what their personal lives should be. And it's because of your ideological idiocy, that you're essentially guaranteed to lose the Senate to the Conservatives in the 2012 elections.

Liberals just don't learn. Why don't you fucking Liberals ever learn? You all claim to be well educated. Why isn't that true when put to a real-world test?

GZ, how exactly do you think the deficit grew in the last 2-3 years? Here's your answer--the recession, wars and tax cuts. You COMPLETELY ignore the revenue side of the equation. You can't do MATH without using the whole equation. When revenues fall due to tax cuts and recessions, THE DEFICIT GROWS. It's not a difficult concept to understand.

"I'm sure you fucking Liberals would love to just keep raising taxes."

HAHAHHAHAHAAHA!!!! Taxes are at their LOWEST levels since 1950.

"But the working man is finding about 40% of his yearly income is stolen each year via all taxes and fees levied by all levels of government (federal, state, county and municipal)."

It's actually about 30% You deficit hawks are brilliant. Continually cut taxes, and then cry because the deficit grew (duh). And now you want to cut social programs to pay for those tax cuts. Well f*ck you! America won't stand for it. We balanced the budget during the Clinton administration. How? By cutting spending AND restoring tax rates.

Pink Slip

GZ, how exactly do you think the deficit grew in the last 2-3 years?

By borrowing and spending. Duh, you idiot.

When revenues fall due to tax cuts and recessions, THE DEFICIT GROWS.

No, when revenues fall, Fiscally Liberal Traitors that you idiots put into office BORROW MORE MONEY. They don't have to borrow that money. They only have to do what's sensible, which is to cut spending to match revenue.

IT'S MATH. And you fucking Liberals can't stand that truth.

We will eventually have to cut spending. Namely, figure out a way to contain long-term healthcare costs. But you DON'T cut spending during a recession. That's moronic. It makes things worse. Learn some macro-economics.

Pink Slip

LMAO....listen to him...cant spend less during a RECESSION...

The party is over pal....Nency Pelosi no longer has the checkbook.

You cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity.

And we already know how the libtards plan to curb health care costs...

Let grannny DIE.

"It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die".

And it's met with appluase from the other libtards in attendance..

Liberals cannot be trusted with national security..

Liberals cannot be trusted with the economy...

Liberals cannot be trusted around the unborn...

And they shouldnt be trusted to manage the care of the elderly...

Everything they are entrusted with....they KILL.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”

Oh, I love that Liberalism there:

1. "Eventually". LOL! That means NEVER. You don't cut spending in good times. You don't cut spending in bad times. Translation: You will NEVER cut spending. Do the numbers. The federal government had a budget of $9 billion in 1940. It became $3.7 trillion in 2010. That's over 8% per year, or 400 times larger. Yet long-term wage growth was only 2.5% to 3%, and the population only grew by 2.3 times. Oh wait, I know you fucking Liberals are bad with math, so the outcome of crunching those numbers is that the federal budget grew far faster than income growth and population growth could support, hence is now about 12 times larger than it should be. Imagine that; instead of about $300 billion, we spend $3700 billion (of which, $1500 billion is BORROWING). So that's a clear waste of over 3 trillion dollars. Each year. And YOU will have to pay for it someday.

The government merely grew for growth's sake, and since it's far outstripping our incomes and population, it will "eventually" (note: the real meaning of the word, not the Liberal meaning) require all of your income. For a Liberal moron like yourself, however, that seems like a good outcome, since it means communism... your holy grail.

2. Keynes never said "run huge deficits all the fucking time". So your platitude about "don't cut spending" just doesn't apply. We overspent all the time, and the government isn't actually an infinite pot of money. Yes, I know Liberalism (which is a mental illness) tells you differently, but that's your problem. Reality says that you can't run huge deficits all the time without crashing the organization.

"You don't cut spending in good times"

Who said that? Me? Keynes? Nope. Look, I gave you a real life example. We cut spending AND restored tax rates during the Clinton administration and balanced the budget. Go ahead and comment on that.

"The federal government had a budget of $9 billion in 1940. It became $3.7 trillion in 2010. That's over 8% per year, or 400 times larger. Yet long-term wage growth was only 2.5% to 3%, and the population only grew by 2.3 times."

How much did the size of the economy grow? It was $101 billion in 1940 and $14 trillion in 2010. That's an increase of 14,000% Spending as a pct of GDP is the correct way to calculate what you are looking for. In 1940, it was 20%. It went above 50% during WWII. Right now, it's about 40% and last year it was about 41% (mainly due to the recession). So it's actually gone down, and it's nowhere near what it was during WWII. And even though spending was MUCH higher in the mid-40's the US someone managed to survive.

"Keynes never said "run huge deficits all the fucking time".

Hey, bravo!! You finally got something right. Guess what? I NEVER SAID IT EITHER. In fact, I said we WOULD have to cut spending. But only an economic retard would consider cutting spending in the middle of a recession. You need to further educate yourself on the matter, because it's clear you're in over your head.

And the red-baiting? Really? Go crawl back to your John Birch Society meetings.

Pink Slip

The problem of your equation "higher revenues and lower spending equals lower deficits. That's not "liberal". It's rational." is that it assumes spending before revenue is collected.

Why are liberals afraid of a balanced budget amendment? Because it doesn't fit into their entitlement thinking where you can spend whatever you want and make someone else pay the bill.

If we had a Balanced Budget amendment it would force both sides of the aisle to concede many of their pet projects.

"And social security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit. It's a fully funded program." True, BUT as the baby boomers retire and the younger generations MUST pay for their benefits with more retirees and less workers and thus it becomes more expensive for the worker who, when they retire, are not guaranteed the same ammount of pay.

The solution for SS has been to raise the age limit that one can collect. Right now they want to raise it from age 67. (I've noted that this is racist since the average black man lives until 65) to this I say why raise it to 70 or 72? Let's raise it to 100. If raising the age one can collect is such a good idea why are we doing it piecemeal? Let's just raise it to age 100. Of course this points out how obsurd raising the age limit actually is. So denying that SS has a problem is nothing more than sticking one's head into the sand.

MikeyA

"So denying that SS has a problem is nothing more than sticking one's head into the sand."

Agreed. But I don't think anyone claimed that. I also agree that raising the retirement age is not the answer. Raising the cap--that IS the answer.

Pink Slip

It's probably true. Obama and his Socialist friends have spent America to near bankruptcy.

And once Obama and the rest of the Democraps are thrown out of office in 2012, Republicans MAY have to raise taxes.

But they'd better make all the cuts they can first. Trim to the bone. Cut ALL the fat. Get rid of every pork-barrel project. THEN AND ONLY THEN should they look at raising taxes.

Otherwise, we will just vote them out of office again. If we want Democraps in office, we'd vote for Democraps. Not RINOs.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Good Old Pension Plan
Good Old Welfare Plan

A Conservative and a Liberal are walking down the street when they come upon a homeless person. After spending a few minutes talking with the individual, the Conservative gives the homeless person twenty dollars along with his card and asks him to come to his place of business for a job.

Further down the street, they encounter another homeless person. The Liberal, impressed by the Conservative's display of charity and support, decides he wants to help as well. He walks over to the homeless person and without discussion, proceeds to give him directions to the nearest welfare office. He then reaches into the Conservative’s pocket and pulls out twenty dollars; giving five dollars to the homeless person and keeping fifteen dollars for administrative fees.

that is funny. What is in your other pocket? Give it up! You make too fucking much anyways. LOL. Spread the wealth or we will eat you. Is this country going commie? What do you think?
We are already communicating on commie computers...lol

and commie modems...that are slow

I laugh about this thread. The GOP was SUPPOSED to be: THE PARTY OF NO, AND NO IDEAS.

Yet here we are discussing GOP ideas. I guess the real question is How much are we going to cut?

MikeyA

Those of us who read more than Nancy Pelosi know that Obamacare has plans to cut Medicare written into the 2000 page bill.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0322/Health-care-reform-bill-...

"Under the healthcare reform bill, government payments to Medicare Advantage – plans that are run by private insurers such as Humana and are an alternative to traditional Medicare – will be cut by $132 billion over 10 years. (Those plans currently get somewhat more per person from the government than traditional Medicare does.)"

The Medicare cuts THAT ARE COMING land solely at the feet of the Democrat controlled Senate, the Democrat controlled Congress and signed by the Democrat President.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Any cuts to Medicare Advantage do not affect traditional Medicare benefits. It actually says that right in your cut and paste job.

Pink Slip

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.