bbauska wrote:It really didn't matter, though. Did it? 72-23 in the Senate.

???

Ryan's proposal received 40 votes in the Senate.

The President's budget proposal received, let me check here, ah . . .

Zero!

theodorelogan wrote:Is voting for budgets with trillion dollar deficits what passes for fiscally conservative these days?

Here's what I know: Ryan's budget, while not as conservative as I'd like, is far more conservative than anything likely to pass. And, it would keep us from going broke--I guess I should say going "bankrupt" because we're already broke.

Doctor Fate wrote:

bbauska wrote:It really didn't matter, though. Did it? 72-23 in the Senate.

???

Ryan's proposal received 40 votes in the Senate.

The President's budget proposal received, let me check here, ah . . .

Zero!

Wrong vote, crossed subject with Neal Anderth.

It's "fiscal conservatives" supporting out of control spending like that outlined in Ryan's plan that led the Feds to the unteneble financial situation they are in now.

The perfect is the enemy of the good -- Voltaire

theodorelogan wrote:It's "fiscal conservatives" supporting out of control spending like that outlined in Ryan's plan that led the Feds to the unteneble financial situation they are in now.

I disagree. It was the "compassionate conservatives" and outright liberals who got us where we are.

And, even now, the Democrats want to spend more.

I think Ryan's plan is a good start to stave off insolvency. While I might want more, I would rather start the conversation to save the nation than to hold out for absolute purity while the nation goes bankrupt.

steve

I would rather start the conversation to save the nation than to hold out for absolute purity while the nation goes bankrupt

Interesting statement from a guy who was mortally oppossed to the bail out of GM and Chrysler...

rickyp wrote:steve

I would rather start the conversation to save the nation than to hold out for absolute purity while the nation goes bankrupt

Interesting statement from a guy who was mortally oppossed to the bail out of GM and Chrysler...

Where I come from that's considered an underhand pitch. Steve, take your time, keep your eye on the ball, and just hit it out of the park.

Ray Jay wrote:

rickyp wrote:steve

I would rather start the conversation to save the nation than to hold out for absolute purity while the nation goes bankrupt

Interesting statement from a guy who was mortally oppossed to the bail out of GM and Chrysler...

Where I come from that's considered an underhand pitch. Steve, take your time, keep your eye on the ball, and just hit it out of the park.

Honestly, it's so absurd I can't be bothered. He probably thinks Chrysler just paid back money on its loan. Reasoning with Ricky is a bit less productive than looking for Kryptonite.

Setting aside the "loan repayments", the numbers of people who retained employment at GM and Chrysler, who would have been unemployed had they been allowed to go bankrupt is enormous. Add to that the numbers in feeder companies, dependant upon the North American car industry and you're talking about 3 to 4 % of all employment . (in 1998 it was 988,000 workers or about 5.4% of all emploed)

But hey, you'd rather GM and Chrysler went broke ? But you don't want the country to go bankrupt.
Here's the thing, when industry is shuttered the country goes broke faster.... (Unemployed people get benefits....and don't pay taxes...)
A broken economy can't negotiate your country out of its fiscal mess no matter if you go back to the turn of the century for infrastructure and "social benefits". Without an economic engine functioning you'd have doomed yourself to an even greater deficit then now.

So cutting the deficit by $90 billion is staving off bankruptcy?

Ryan's budget is like a broke person deciding he has a problem with debt, and buying 14 new cars instead of 15, when he can't afford 1, and claiming he's made a financially responsible decision

theodorelogan wrote:So cutting the deficit by $90 billion is staving off bankruptcy?

Ryan's budget is like a broke person deciding he has a problem with debt, and buying 14 new cars instead of 15, when he can't afford 1, and claiming he's made a financially responsible decision

I don't think you're even close.

Again, I'm not arguing it's perfect. I am saying it is the most "radical" proposal likely to get any consideration. It is a decent starting place for a conversation.

if the Democrats have their way, they'll simply raise taxes. This is a recipe for disaster, but when has that stopped them? They bemoan the GOP's lack of willingness to discuss additional revenue. That they are largely responsible for the massive increase in spending over the last four years seems to escape their notice.

Steve

if the Democrats have their way, they'll simply raise taxes

Yes, back to the way they were before George Bush took office.
How were things then?
Disastrous?

Steve

That they are largely responsible for the massive increase in spending over the last four years seems to escape their notice.

The deficit going forward is largely a result of the reduced revenues due to the tax cuts brought in by Bush and sustained by Congress recently.
That the stimulus and bail outs were necessary and functioned well (see you non-response to the success of the bail outs to the US automobile companies) you ignore.
And you ignore the fact that taxes in the US are at a historical low. (lowest since 1940 at least) Were brought in by Bush and 2001 and had zero impact on the economy.
Spending is out of control in your government Steve. But blaming the budget deficits on only spending can only be done if one ignores the reality of what tax cuts did between 2001 and now. (Conservatives who aren't true fiscal conservatives seem able to grasp only one side of an equation at a time)
What Ryan's budget has done is focus the US population on its priorities.
That's a good thing.
Clearly Ryan's priorities include cutting social services like Medicare in order to sustain low taxrates for the wealthy and corporations . To sell that will mean the majority of people will have to "believe" that cutting taxes by George Bush had results that aren't evidenced by reality.
The majority will have to be convinced that tax rates under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton were excessive and an obvious drag on the economy.
Will have to believe that spending on the military and corporate subsidies should take a priority over spending on the social safety net.
its an interesting debate. Framed again by belief versus evidence. Belief that tax cuts always create a positive effect, and that government intervention can never create positive good.
Tell me again about the current state of the US automobile industry and how it was before the bail out.

rickyp wrote:A broken economy can't negotiate your country out of its fiscal mess no matter if you go back to the turn of the century for infrastructure and "social benefits". Without an economic engine functioning you'd have doomed yourself to an even greater deficit then now.

You've just set a new record for laughability.

President O'Bama, the Irishman that he is, has steadily done nothing that makes economic sense.

1. The "Stimulus." Nearly 1 trillion on "shovel-ready" infrastructure-focused projects. Yet, Democrats complain our infrastructure is crumbling. How can that be? Where did the money go? A lot of it went to bail out States which were irresponsible. That didn't help the infrastructure and was a band-aid on a sucking chest wound--those States are still hurting and some of them will come crawling for more Federal money. Hey, it worked before!

2. Healthcare overhaul. The President and Democrats passed this on a purely partisan basis. That is unprecedented for such a sweeping bill--in terms of its cost and impact on every American. Additionally, does anyone believe it has had a positive impact on "The Great Recession?" Obama can blame Bush 'til the cows come home (and he does), but this bill alone contributed to money sitting on the sidelines because it created even more uncertainty.

3. Governmental overreach. Whether it was the ever-expanding role the EPA has asserted or the drilling moratorium the Administration imposed, or its consistent involvement in picking winners and losers in energy and other industries, the Government under Obama just can't keep its hands off of much. Has any of it "helped" end "The Great Recession?" Of course not. Mr. Obama, for all of his rhetorical skill, has never so much as run a hot dog stand. He has no idea what risking capital is like, what it means to meet a payroll, or how one creates wealth for investors. He brought ideologues in to run many important government functions--including the NRLB, which is trying to prevent a business from moving to a business-friendly State. Because businesses must assume the government will continue to act in an irresponsible and intrusive manner, they will naturally be more reticent to take risks.

4. The President, as former Speaker Pelosi liked to say, was focused like a laser on jobs. How's that working out? If his priority was jobs, he would not have done any of the three things above--no matter how "good" you think they are. Why? Because they take confidence OUT of the economy, which means investors look for safe places to put their money. Liberals want to tax that money. That won't help either. As even you said, "Without an economic engine functioning you'd have doomed yourself to an even greater deficit then (sic) now." The engine is sputtering, not roaring. If O'Bama had thrown his doctrinaire liberalism out the window for 2 years, he could now be looking at the liberal wishlist with some reason to think it could be done. Instead, he played by the book he believes in and the results are an economy that runs like, well, a Chevy Volt: overpromising, under-delivering, and a predictable failure without massive changes.

You want to give Obama credit for saving GM and Chrysler. So far, they've repaid their loans by . . . taking more money from taxpayers!!! Let's wait and see what happens when the gravy train comes to an end.

Btw, how are sales for the Chevy Volt?

The Leaf sold 573 units in April versus the Volt's 493. Compared to March's results, which had Leaf sales at 298 and Volt sales at 608, Nissan's electric hatch has gained some ground, while Chevy's plug-in lost some traction.

The latest cumulative U.S. sales totals for the plug-in duo, since launching in late 2010, has the Volt leading the pack with 2,029 units sold, while the Leaf comes in at 1,044. Year-to-date, Volt sales stand at 1,703, while Nissan says Leaf production had, as of April 15th, hit nearly 8,000.

Meanwhile, look at these "dismal" numbers:

September was a dismal month for hybrids. The Toyota Prius racked up 11,394 sales, but fell 405 units short of reaching the mark it set in August. The Honda Insight dropped from the 2,030 sales reported in August down to just 1,679 and even the sporty CR-Z managed only a meager 1,236 units in its first full month on the market. Heck, even Toyota and Lexus, the hybrid duo that dominates the segment, dipped down slightly and finished the month with only 14,871 sales.

Wow. It's like the Volt is lighting the world aflame! It's amazing what O'Bama can do with GM! He's the second coming of Steve Jobs! Can't wait to see his next 5-year plan.

rickyp wrote:Steve

if the Democrats have their way, they'll simply raise taxes

Yes, back to the way they were before George Bush took office.
How were things then?
Disastrous?

Ricky, is raising taxes in the midst of "The Great Recession" going to improve the economy? If so, how? Looking at a different time with different circumstances and pretending the tax rate was the cause is disingenuous at best and probably closer to fatuous.

The deficit going forward is largely a result of the reduced revenues due to the tax cuts brought in by Bush and sustained by Congress recently.

1. Say it with me, Ricky: "sustained by a DEMOCRATIC Congress recently and SIGNED by Obama!"

2. Prove this is the cause of the deficit and not the massive increase in spending. You can't because it's not. It's a combination of the economic downturn (which always decreases government revenues) and big increases in spending.

3. Note well the Democrats' solution: not just raise taxes, but spend (aka "invest") more! Look at the President's budget (defeated 97-0). What were the big spending cuts in it? Did he present a plan for substantially reducing the deficit?

Were brought in by Bush and 2001 and had zero impact on the economy.

Zero impact, unless you count 5% unemployment until the banking collapse and RE bubble burst.

Spending is out of control in your government Steve.

Ricky, yes, Ricky, it is, Ricky. So, Ricky, is your need to use, Ricky, the names of others, Ricky, over and over.

What is Obama doing about spending? What is the Great Man proposing?

But blaming the budget deficits on only spending can only be done if one ignores the reality of what tax cuts did between 2001 and now. (Conservatives who aren't true fiscal conservatives seem able to grasp only one side of an equation at a time)

How about some facts?

When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04 — that’s $8.67 trillion. Today, the last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership, the national debt is $13,871,130,353,817.40 — that’s $13.87 trillion. A $5.2 trillion in just four years.

The Pelosi debt works out to $44,662 for every man, woman and child who make up the 310,574,015 U.S. populace.

At any point, the Democrats could have stopped it. There is no "presidential override" if the House refuses to spend money.

Clearly Ryan's priorities include cutting social services like Medicare in order to sustain low taxrates for the wealthy and corporations

It cuts NOTHING for seniors who are 55 and older. ZERO.

What tax rate would be needed to pay for Medicare and Social Security as currently configured? If you won't answer that, you have NO argument.

We already have one of the highest corporate rates in the world. Should we raise it in a recession?

To sell that will mean the majority of people will have to "believe" that cutting taxes by George Bush had results that aren't evidenced by reality.

Wrong. It's not about what Pelosi did or didn't do, what Bush did or didn't do. It's about what the future holds. Idiots who pretend Medicare is not a problem are just that. Idiots. It's tens of TRILLIONS short of what is needed.

Again, what tax rate will make up for that? If you won't answer that, shut up.