DN - lead by example rather than by telling us to do what you yourself are
unwilling to do.
Fine! Stop Abortion and Illegals and I would consider doing that.
The obvious problem is that we have Senators like Hatch whose main main campaign
message is "I won't let them close Hill AFB'. If it isn't the
right thing for the Country or in the strategic best interest of the DOD then
why keep it open? As a make work program? I'm not saying that it is or
isn't the right thing to do but it's that mentality when it comes to
SS benefits, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, agriculture subsidies, subsidized
student loans and on and on that is going to send us into oblivion As a
side note I really wish everyone would stop hating on Paul Ryan. The man has a
starting point which has actually been passed by the House. The President
can't even get a single vote for his budget in the Senate. At least Ryan
has his party on board with his budget. The President can't even get a
Democrat to support his budget let alone a Republican.
As many other posters have pointed out, the Paul Ryan plan is hardly a
'responsible proposal.' If enacted, it will increase both the deficit
and unemployment. Our economic woes continue, but we have seen some
encouraging news. The private sector really is growing, and hiring.
What's driving unemployment right now are the cutbacks made by states and
communities. Budget cuts by government mean firing people. Let's be
blunt; that's what's going on. When you cut spending, you're
firing people. That means fewer consumers, fewer purchasers, less demand.
We're in a demand side recession. How is decreasing demand going to help
anything at all? The deficit is a serious problem, and needs to be
seriously addressed. We can grow our way out of it, however. The current crisis
is unemployment. So how is increasing unemployment going to reduce
"...The more prudent course, however, would be for voters to insist on
candidates; all candidates for federal office; to articulate how they would
pursue a realistic solution to the fiscal crisis in Washington...".Amen.DN readers have exposed the Ryan Budget for what it is, as
well as what it does and does not do.The Ryan Budget has been
adopted, by Romney.The Ryan Budget is a non-starter for all
Americans except defense contractors and wealthy Republican donors.Realistic solution?Still waiting.
At this point, it is the Republicans who need to come to the table. The
reasonable revenue increases Democrats were willing to bargain for momths ago
(plus more!) are automatically happening on January 1. With each tick of the
clock the Republicans lose bargaining power. They can screech louder and
louder, but they are foolish to stay away from the bargaining table. No matter
how successful Republicans are in the upcoming election, they will not have a
filibuster-proof (60 seat) majority in the Senate, so taxes are going up (with
absolutely none of their agenda being enacted) unless they bend.
Asking the poor and middle class to sacrifice, while leaving the more well to do
alone is not a fair solution.Unfortunately, Americans have elected
enough Tea Party types who insist on this, and they will not compromise.
Democrats and moderate Republicans will not give up everything, while the other
side gives up nothing.This is the reason a solution is so hard to
find.If Americans want change, they need to elect representatives
who now how to work with the other side and give some so they can take some.
Otherwise we are stuck with what we have.
This coming from a paper that so eagerly publishes anti-Obama cartoons and
letters? From a paper that weekly publishes one of the biggest hacks out there,
Charles Krauthammer? This from a paper that printed an endless
amount of birther letters? What ever happened to lead by example???
Either side that characterizes the other's proposals as "dead on
arrival" (and both sides have done so) thwart productive discussions.
Ryan's budget has flaws, yet the opposition's budget has not been put
forth. Look at the problems, jobs, debt, education, military preparedness,
energy, the environment and then solve them. Don't just stone-wall
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is criticizing the House Republican
budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan for cutting food stamps and other assistance
programs for the poor.In a letter sent to the House Agriculture
Committee on Monday, the bishops say the budget fails to meet certain
“moral criteria” by disproportionately cutting programs that
“serve poor and vulnerable people.”A second letter sent
Tuesday to the Ways and Means Committee criticizes a provision that makes it
more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim child tax credits. The bishops
called the credit “one of the most effective antipoverty programs in our
I read that the Federal government spends more on "defense" than
anything else, including Social Security or Medicare. For FY 2013, the Federal
government has budgeted $851 billion for security spending, more than the $820
billion requested for Social Security, or the $523 billion for Medicare.
Security spending includes the Department of Defense, overseas contingencies,
and departments such as Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs and the State
Department. What's more SS is entirely self-funding being 2.4
trillion dollars in surplus actually, with the surplus held in treasury bonds
representing money appropriated for and from the retirees themselves but applied
to other purposes by Congress. The so-called "tax cuts" which are a
blatant diminution of Social Security funding need to be reversed.Unfortunately we have a Congress that is military mad, will not even shut down
ANY military base in friendly foreign nations, always votes for war or whatever
euphemism they invent for war, and can't seem to keep its hands off Social
Many thanks to those who have successfully refuted the DN's ridiculous
claim that Ryan has presented a "realistic budget proposal." Add to
those comments Ryan's and the Heritage Foundation's claim that with
his budget unemployment would drop to 2.8% by 2018, a rate that hasn't been
seen since the early 1920's and in the opinion of some economists
isn't possible and might not be good for the economy. Also, consider that
in Ryan's budget, 2/3 of the cuts will directly impact poor people and his
tax cuts will definitely benefit the wealthy more than others.The
only juvenile behavior has been displayed by one uncompromising party over the
last several years. When Republican Congressman Alan West claims "there are
78-81 Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party; when 238 of
242 Republican Congressmen sign Grover Norquist's Taxpayer Protection
Pledge to "never support a tax increase", for any reason; when seven
Republican co-sponsors of a Senate resolution to create a debt-reduction panel
voted against their own resolution just to deny the president a victory; I think
we can see who the juveniles are.
Once again the Democartic position is mis represented, as "maily" tax
increases for the rich. The position is actually...we'll talk entitlements
and solcial welfare but not unless you talk revenue, which must include tax
increases on those who make over a million a year. Very, very different.
You ask for thoughtful compromise, yet you put out a highly partisan editorial.
As Truthseeker pointed out, Ryan's budget is not "realistic". Not
only that, due to its large tax cuts, it doesn't even claim to bring our a
balanced budget for about thirty years, despite the fact that it eliminates
almost all government.Most budget experts have concluded that either
Romney's plan will increase the deficit above and beyond the
President's, or they can not even analyze it because it is so vague as to
be meaningless. He has promised tax cuts and large defense increases, but has
not specified how he will pay for any of it.
Exactly. But that will take leadership and cooperation. Those are two things
sorely lacking on all sides in our national governmental leaders.How
about we clean house and replace all those who hold office now? And how about
we overturn the most dangerous threat to our nation -- Citizens United?
DN thinks Ryan's budget is a realistic proposal?The tax cuts in
Ryan’s budget would add $4.6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next
decade, even after extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts, which would add another
$5.4 trillion to the deficit.The CBO report, prepared at Chairman
Ryan’s request, shows that Ryan’s budget path would shrink federal
expenditures for everything other than Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and interest payments to just
3¾ percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2050. Since, as CBO
notes, “spending for defense alone has not been lower than 3 percent of
GDP in any year [since World War II]” and Ryan seeks a high level of
defense spending — he increases defense funding by $228 billion over the
next ten years above the pre-sequestration baseline — the rest of
government would largely have to disappear.