Senate Republican Chambliss Says Ryan’s Budget Plan Won’t Work

[Straw Man]

Senate Republican Chambliss Says Ryan’s Budget Plan Won’t Work
By David Beasley and Heidi Przybyla - Apr 11, 2011

Republican U.S. Senator Saxby Chambliss said the House’s 2012 budget proposal put together by fellow Republican Paul Ryan won't work because it relies too heavily on spending cuts and doesn’t raise tax revenue to help cut the deficit.

“It’s just not going to work,” Chambliss, of Georgia, said in a speech today to the Rotary Club in Atlanta. At the same time, he called the proposal by Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, to privatize Medicare “very intriguing.” Chambliss said it “could be the answer” to overhauling the federal health-care program for the elderly.

The budget proposal released April 5 by Ryan, of Wisconsin, would cut the federal deficit in coming years by about three- quarters. It would cut spending by $6 trillion over the next decade and lower top individual and corporate tax rates from 35 percent to 25 percent.

Ryan’s plan would phase out the Medicare health-care program for the elderly and instead provide retirees with subsidies to buy private health insurance.

Chambliss is co-leader of a bipartisan group of six senators crafting a debt-reduction plan that may redirect the budget debate, as Congress faces looming fights over raising the federal debt limit and the fiscal 2012 budget. Chambliss, Virginia Democrat Mark Warner and the group’s other four senators say they aim to address financing of the Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs.

Chambliss said his so-called “Gang of Six” is “getting close to an agreement” on its proposal, though he didn’t offer details.

Some tax exemptions will need to be eliminated to lower tax rates and increase revenue, he said.

‘You Bet’
“Are some people going to pay more in taxes? You bet,” Chambliss said during a news conference after the speech.

Warner, who joined Chambliss at the Rotary Club, said, “If we can start this with a bipartisan plan, it increases the chance of success.”

Chambliss said President Barack Obama’s plan announced yesterday to give a speech April 13 to propose changes in Medicare and Medicaid was a “curve ball” for his group.

“None of us knew until yesterday that the president was going to make any comment on the long-term deficit issue,” Chambliss said.

Jim Kessler, a vice president of the Democratic policy group Third Way in Washington, said Chambliss’s comments on taxes -- similar to the view among many Democrats that some tax increases will be needed to cut the deficit -- are important.

“We’ve moved from slim to possible on a major deficit- reduction deal this Congress,” Kessler said.

The budget proposal Obama offered in February aims to reduce deficits by $1 trillion over coming years, though it didn’t offer proposals on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security.

Democrats say the proposal by Ryan would balance the budget on the backs of the nation’s seniors and poor while granting tax breaks to the wealthy.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-04-11/senate-republican-chambliss-says-ryan-s-budget-plan-won-t-work.html

[240 is Back]

actually, this seems to be the common reaction to it...

Repubs will praise him for his effort and enthusiasm, and then avoid the topic, call it a 'good start', or start bashing dems.

Nobody will touch this, not with a 10 foot pole.  No politician will say they wish to cut medicare.  Toss in the tax cuts at the same time, it's poison for anyone up for re-election.

[Straw Man]

actually, this seems to be the common reaction to it...

Repubs will praise him for his effort and enthusiasm, and then avoid the topic, call it a 'good start', or start bashing dems.

Nobody will touch this, not with a 10 foot pole.  No politician will say they wish to cut medicare.  Toss in the tax cuts at the same time, it's poison for anyone up for re-election.

his plan is just the same tired Republican agenda.  Cut taxes on the wealthy and cut services from the poor and middle class and now also privatize Medicare

[Soul Crusher]

Sort of like the messiah and his own debt commission? 

[Straw Man]

More on Ryan and few well placed jabs at Obama too

Paul Ryan Budget: Grand Old Bullshit
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/75147/paul-ryan-budget-grand-old-bullshit/

Somewhere huddled deep inside the White House catacombs are a group of hacks—otherwise known as President Obama’s political advisors—utterly oblivious to the state of American politics. They seem to believe that from gleaning several seasons of The West Wing they can derive a legitimate understanding of how to negotiate with a political party composed of a House Speaker whose closest bipedal ancestor is an oompa loompa, a former House Speaker who dumped his wife while she was recovering from cancer, a batshit crazy congresswoman from Minnesota, a Mormon who once strapped his dog to the roof of a car during a family trip, and a witch from Delaware.

By shuffling their feet and avoiding anything that remotely resembles a bold stance, the Obama Administration has allowed Paul “I hate poor people” Ryan to steal the limelight with a Very Serious and Very Bold economic plan.

Meanwhile, I’m having difficulty discerning which is more infuriating: a) the voodoo economics upon which Ryan’s plan is built; b) the amenable mainstream media legitimizing said plan; or c) congressional Democrats who apparently have derived their negotiating skills from Homer Simpson.

Let’s begin with the GOP’s economic suicide pact, colloquially known as the 2012 Republican budget proposal. I won’t even dwell on the fact that literally all the tax cuts in Ryan’s plan are directed at the wealthy. Forget, even, that this budget will actually increase the deficit over the next ten years.

Just take a step back and consider the big picture: The estimated cost of giving the wealthiest Americans a multi-trillion dollar windfall is just about equal to the proposed cuts in food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs targeted at low-income families. In a society where the top 400 families possess more wealth than the bottom 50%, the Ryan Express seeks to further magnify this vast disparity by scraping crumbs from the poor to subsidize the rich.

It’s hard to miss the laughable claims nestled in this perverted Robin Hood manifesto. First off, Ryan, citing none other than the Heritage Foundation, claims that not only will unemployment fall below 3% within ten years (a level witnessed once, briefly, during the Korean War), but healthcare and social security spending will plummet to 3.5% of GDP.

How will this happen? Why screwing over the poor and elderly, of course. Medicare will be replaced with a voucher program that recklessly caps the amount of money the federal government contributes to the care of its senior population. As Dean Baker notes, seniors will be forced to pay the vast majority of their medical expenses by themselves, and the poor will be hung out to dry with a gutted Medicaid program that shifts nearly all the financial burden to overstretched state payrolls.

The Ryan plan is fraud, plain and simple. Yet by fawning over just how Bold and Serious this “proposal” is, the media is legitimizing a hyper-conservative death sentence that will literally kill off the poor and elderly to underwrite massive tax cuts for the richest of the rich.

Yet the media neglects to report on the flagrant Republican hypocrisy with regard to Medicare. Remember the buildup to the midterm elections? Remember all the terrifying GOP advertisements warning seniors that Obama was going to detonate Medicare? Remember John Boehner exhorting that Obama’s “government takeover of health care would cut seniors’ Medicare benefits by $500 billion”? Remember the much-heralded Pledge to America which warned that the “new health care law’s massive Medicare cuts will fall squarely on the backs of seniors”?

Instead of casually noting how fucking insane the Republican demands are, Obama, in his quest to make every last person in the world love him, has refused to demonstrate anything remotely resembling leadership. Channeling his inner Neville Chamberlain, Obama thoroughly appeased Republicans before they even began holding the United States hostage with a shutdown. After acquiescing to nearly every GOP demand, Democrats declared victory after “saving” Planned Parenthood by agreeing to yet more spending cuts that will further derail an already sputtering economic recovery.

Somewhere, just maybe, Obama has an agenda that hasn’t been tainted by the austerity myth currently being peddled by the Tea Party and their Republican enablers. Sadly, he has wasted literally every opportunity to define the debate, punting instead to a complaisant media and Paul Ryan’s Very Serious, Very Bold prescription for economic suicide.

[Fury]

actually, this seems to be the common reaction to it...

Repubs will praise him for his effort and enthusiasm, and then avoid the topic, call it a 'good start', or start bashing dems.

Nobody will touch this, not with a 10 foot pole.  No politician will say they wish to cut medicare.  Toss in the tax cuts at the same time, it's poison for anyone up for re-election.

You're a fucking weasel, dude. You were already proven wrong on this shit by gigantor and you chose to tuck tail and run from the thread.

Because it looks like you already forgot (shocker), I've taken the liberty of finding his quote. I'll even bump the thread for you right after this as you conveniently vanished from it after Gigantor smacked you in the mouth:

You're an idiot.

From the NY Times.
--Like the Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission and other bipartisan groups, Mr. Ryan would eliminate many, though unspecified, income tax breaks to generate greater federal income. But unlike the other groups, he would use the new revenues only to lower tax rates to a maximum 25 percent for individuals and corporations, down from 35 percent. Again, details would be left to the appropriate legislative committees. The other deficit study groups would devote some revenues to reducing deficits.---

Lowering the rates and closing the credits, loopholes, deductions etc. Guess what, if you do this those "RICH THIEVING BASTARDS" will probably end up having a larger income tax liability at the end of the tax season. Same with the corporations. The defense budget I will agree on, but you're wading into the deep end without your floaties on concerning everything else.

Please stop posting in this thread.

You have no grasp of anything in this proposed budget yet you keep rattling on like some sort of pseudo-expert. It's comical, really.


As for Straw Man, I thought the GOP didn't know anything? Why are you referencing a Repub senator to prove your point?  So they know what they're talking about when it falls in line with your agenda? Give it a rest. No one outside of a small minority thinks we can spend our way out of this. Then again, you're the same retard who thinks we didn't spend ENOUGH in the stimulus to solve the problems. Moronic. 

[tu_holmes]

Very interesting... I don't know how accurate it is... but it sounds good.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America.

In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay.
Is this just Republicans vs. Democrats? Not quite, see: voodoo economics.

-Reagan-Not-Congress
It's a terrible thing to scare America about its debt when we're doing great and then send the debt through the roof for no reason. So the supply siders invented another lie — Congress did. As this graph shows, Congress changed the presidents' budgets only a tiny bit and more down than up — by $16 billion over Reagan's eight years. And over those eight years Reagan increased the debt by $1,860 billion. Blaming that on the tiny budget reduction by Congress is just political nonsense. More+Documentation.
   
     
 
 
   
     
-Reagan-Bush-National-Debt
         Explanation and Check It Yourself
This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.)
Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.
The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they've scared America again about the debt. It's easier now that they've run it through the roof.
   
     E-Mail a short version of the (3 graphs) to your freinds. It's easy. Check it out. This is the time your email will go furthest and have the most effect.
 
   
     
zFact-WWII-boom
See the Full Slide Show
The Present Danger
The Great Depression lasted about 12 years with business conservatives scaring people about inflation (there was none) and about government borrowing (negligible until WWII). Now the supply siders are keeping us in the Great Recession the same way.
So What Worked? World War II. Uncle Sam (the U.S. government) borrowed the equivalent of 10.5 Trillion (see top graph) and bought war goods from private industry. Supply siders say this creates no jobs. But industry hired Rosey the Riveter and millions more. Unemployment ended with over-employment. The U.S. had its greatest economic boom ever — by far. It doubled output in six years.
Back then we had real Patriots. They loved Uncle Sam and they bought war bonds to help him borrow to hire people and win the war. Now people, who hate Uncle Sam almost as much as Al Qaeda, call themselves Patriots. They should call themselves Hateriots. But they have just been duped by the Wall Streeters who invented supply-side economics -- and who have been telling us lies for 30 years.
America is about to vote the supply siders and hateriots into Congress.
They will give tax cuts to the rich, which is what got us into debt. And though the rich will spend a bit more on gardeners, nannies, and yachts, the country will have nothing to show for this extra debt.
It's simply immoral to give more tax cuts to today's rich so the next generation can pay for them. $12 trillion of this voodoo taxing of the future is enough.
But the real patriots of WWII, who borrowed and spent and gave 400,000 lives for their country, showed us the way.
Another lie: Spending now won't work because it's not for war. That's what the Wall Streeters tell us so we'll give them tax breaks instead. But does it help future generations more to build battle ships or to fix our bridges and dams? Does it help the economy more to put our men to work at home or send them to die in France? It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous claim than the one that spending for war is more productive than spending on infrastructure and education for our future.
Supply-side "voodoo" economics is an immoral trick of thievery, designed for today's rich at the expense of the future. It hoodwinks many by offering the middle class some of the booty — the rich get the big tax cuts, but hey, the middle class can have some too, also at the expense of the future. The result of falling for this, is an out-of-control debt that scares us into staying in recession and will soon be used to kill social security and Medicare — which the rich don't need.
It's time to put America back to work.
Let's say thanks to our real patriots who showed us how.

[Fury]

Very interesting... I don't know how accurate it is... but it sounds good.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Reagan got elected by telling the country the debt was "out of control." Compared to national income, it was the lowest in 50 years. He probably didn't know. But his supply-side economists did. They lied to America.

In 1981 Reagan's supply siders wrote the tax cuts for the rich and his budgets. The Senate was Republican, and Reagan got the Southern Dems in the House to vote for him. All Republicans and a few Dems voted for the budget. The national debt had its worst year since 1945. The next year it got worse, and for 20 out of 20 years, the supply siders raised the debt relative to our ability to pay.
Is this just Republicans vs. Democrats? Not quite, see: voodoo economics.

-Reagan-Not-Congress
It's a terrible thing to scare America about its debt when we're doing great and then send the debt through the roof for no reason. So the supply siders invented another lie — Congress did. As this graph shows, Congress changed the presidents' budgets only a tiny bit and more down than up — by $16 billion over Reagan's eight years. And over those eight years Reagan increased the debt by $1,860 billion. Blaming that on the tiny budget reduction by Congress is just political nonsense. More+Documentation.
   
     
 
 
   
     
-Reagan-Bush-National-Debt
         Explanation and Check It Yourself
This graph shows what happened since Oct. 1, 1981, the day Reagan started his first budget. First Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion (see for yourself). Then Bush brought that to $3.4 Trillion. Then all that started collected interest for the next 17 years, and with compounding that grew to $8.2 Trillion by Sept. 30, 2010. Clinton, Bush II and Obama are not to blame for that interest, and without it, Clinton would have paid off most of the $1 Trillion WWII debt that Reagan scared us with to get elected. And Bush II (and his supply siders) would have run up only $3.8 Trillion — not $6.1T, which is what actually happened under Bush II. (A clear proof of this with document links.)
Before the supply siders, Dems and Repubs brought the debt down relative to our income in 27 out of 35 years. The supply siders (with Reagan and the Bushes) raised it 20 out of 20 years. That's no accident.
The Supply-Sider's Hoax: Bush-I called it voodoo economics (but he got stuck with it). Their "theory" is that cutting taxes for the super rich will encourage them to work so much harder and make so much more money that they will pay more taxes, even though their tax rate went down. Well the voodoo didn't work in 20 out of 20 years. And now they want to try it again. And they've scared America again about the debt. It's easier now that they've run it through the roof.
   
     E-Mail a short version of the (3 graphs) to your freinds. It's easy. Check it out. This is the time your email will go furthest and have the most effect.
 
   
     
zFact-WWII-boom
See the Full Slide Show
The Present Danger
The Great Depression lasted about 12 years with business conservatives scaring people about inflation (there was none) and about government borrowing (negligible until WWII). Now the supply siders are keeping us in the Great Recession the same way.
So What Worked? World War II. Uncle Sam (the U.S. government) borrowed the equivalent of 10.5 Trillion (see top graph) and bought war goods from private industry. Supply siders say this creates no jobs. But industry hired Rosey the Riveter and millions more. Unemployment ended with over-employment. The U.S. had its greatest economic boom ever — by far. It doubled output in six years.
Back then we had real Patriots. They loved Uncle Sam and they bought war bonds to help him borrow to hire people and win the war. Now people, who hate Uncle Sam almost as much as Al Qaeda, call themselves Patriots. They should call themselves Hateriots. But they have just been duped by the Wall Streeters who invented supply-side economics -- and who have been telling us lies for 30 years.
America is about to vote the supply siders and hateriots into Congress.
They will give tax cuts to the rich, which is what got us into debt. And though the rich will spend a bit more on gardeners, nannies, and yachts, the country will have nothing to show for this extra debt.
It's simply immoral to give more tax cuts to today's rich so the next generation can pay for them. $12 trillion of this voodoo taxing of the future is enough.
But the real patriots of WWII, who borrowed and spent and gave 400,000 lives for their country, showed us the way.
Another lie: Spending now won't work because it's not for war. That's what the Wall Streeters tell us so we'll give them tax breaks instead. But does it help future generations more to build battle ships or to fix our bridges and dams? Does it help the economy more to put our men to work at home or send them to die in France? It's hard to imagine a more ridiculous claim than the one that spending for war is more productive than spending on infrastructure and education for our future.
Supply-side "voodoo" economics is an immoral trick of thievery, designed for today's rich at the expense of the future. It hoodwinks many by offering the middle class some of the booty — the rich get the big tax cuts, but hey, the middle class can have some too, also at the expense of the future. The result of falling for this, is an out-of-control debt that scares us into staying in recession and will soon be used to kill social security and Medicare — which the rich don't need.
It's time to put America back to work.
Let's say thanks to our real patriots who showed us how.

We've tried this spending game for 2 years now. All it has gotten us is an astronomical debt and zero jobs to show for it. The stimulus, which was marketed as essential to keeping unemployment under 8%, has done nothing and unemployment now sits in excess of 10%. How much more do we spend before we conclude that it doesn't work? $10 trillion more? $20 trillion more?

Spending has not worked nor will it work.

[Soul Crusher]

The same leftist pieces of fucking shit who wated trillions w zero to show for it are now attacking ryan wo even presenting theirn plan after exploding the debt. Nice. 

Can't even make this up any more how economically obtuse you left wing mini madoffs are.

[Straw Man]

You're a fucking weasel, dude. You were already proven wrong on this shit by gigantor and you chose to tuck tail and run from the thread.

Because it looks like you already forgot (shocker), I've taken the liberty of finding his quote. I'll even bump the thread for you right after this as you conveniently vanished from it after Gigantor smacked you in the mouth:

You have no grasp of anything in this proposed budget yet you keep rattling on like some sort of pseudo-expert. It's comical, really.


As for Straw Man, I thought the GOP didn't know anything? Why are you referencing a Repub senator to prove your point?  So they know what they're talking about when it falls in line with your agenda? Give it a rest. No one outside of a small minority thinks we can spend our way out of this. Then again, you're the same retard who thinks we didn't spend ENOUGH in the stimulus to solve the problems. Moronic. 

if you thought the GOP doesn't know anything then that's your opinion so don't lay it on me

If you can't figure out why I would show a Republican Senator questioning parts of antoher Republicans budget proposal then you're telling me to not even waste my time trying to explain it to you

how much would you like to bet he wants to get rid of the one tax break that most important to the middle and lower class yet means almost nothing to millionares?

[Fury]

The same leftist pieces of fucking shit who wated trillions w zero to show for it are now attacking ryan wo even presenting theirn plan after exploding the debt. Nice. 

Can't even make this up any more how economically obtuse you left wing mini madoffs are.

It's comical. They have nothing of value to counter with so they stick to lying and slander.

if you thought the GOP doesn't know anything then that's your opinion so don't lay it on me

If you can't figure out why I would show a Republican Senator questioning parts of antoher Republicans budget proposal then you're telling me to not even waste my time trying to explain it to you

how much would you like to bet he wants to get rid of the one tax break that most important to the middle and lower class yet means almost nothing to millionares?

The NY Times, liberal rag that it is, has explained Ryan's tax proposal. Feel free to read the quote from Gigantor. I know it's hard to grasp as your liberal blinders don't allow to read anything that might prove your biased, unsubstantiated opinions wrong, but give it a shot this time.

You and 240 have no grasp of Ryan's tax proposal yet you keep talking like pseudo-experts. It's pathetic. You're reduced to making grandiose assumptions that you can't actually substantiate.

How much would I like to bet, though? How about you PROVE that he'll get rid of one of those tax breaks? We're not discussing your biased, opinionated analysis. We're discussing Ryan's proposal.

[Straw Man]

We've tried this spending game for 2 years now. All it has gotten us is an astronomical debt and zero jobs to show for it. The stimulus, which was marketed as essential to keeping unemployment under 8%, has done nothing and unemployment now sits in excess of 10%. How much more do we spend before we conclude that it doesn't work? $10 trillion more? $20 trillion more?

Spending has not worked nor will it work.

2 years.... LOL

yeah, all we've done is stabalize the banking system, save the auto companies, start to see a turn around in the economy, employment etc..

On other hand we've been trying been trying supply side economics for 30 years and, according to no less and authority the Reagans own budget director and champion of supply side economics, it's been a complete failure

[Straw Man]

It's comical. They have nothing of value to counter with so they stick to lying and slander.

The NY Times, liberal rag that it is, has explained Ryan's tax proposal. Feel free to read the quote from Gigantor. I know it's hard to grasp as your liberal blinders don't allow to read anything that might prove your biased, unsubstantiated opinions wrong, but give it a shot this time.

You and 240 have no grasp of Ryan's tax proposal yet you keep talking like pseudo-experts. It's pathetic. You're reduced to making grandiose assumptions that you can't actually substantiate.

How much would I like to bet, though? How about you PROVE that he'll get rid of one of those tax breaks? We're not discussing your biased, opinionated analysis. We're discussing Ryan's proposal.

do you even know which one I'll alluding too

[Fury]

2 years.... LOL

yeah, all we've done is stabalize the banking system, save the auto companies, start to see a turn around in the economy, employment etc..

On other hand we've been trying been trying supply side economics for 30 years and, according to no less and authority the Reagans own budget director and champion of supply side economics, it's been a complete failure

Turn around in the economy? Hahahahaha. Man, are you fucking delusional. A true Obama sheep. How can someone say, with a straight face, that 10% unemployment is a turn-around in the economy? $4+/gal gas and rising inflation is a turn-around? Get the fuck out of here.

And he saved the auto industry? The US taxpayer is going to lose $84 billion on that one. Meanwhile, privately owned Ford is killing it. Yeah, he "saved" it alright. 

[Straw Man]

Turn around in the economy? Hahahahaha. Man, are you fucking delusional. A true Obama sheep. How can someone say, with a straight face, that 10% unemployment is a turn-around in the economy? $4+/gal gas and rising inflation is a turn-around? Get the fuck out of here.

And he saved the auto industry? The US taxpayer is going to lose $84 billion on that one. Meanwhile, privately owned Ford is killing it. Yeah, he "saved" it alright. 

If you paid attention you'd notice I said "start to see a turn around"

why are you so fucking angry all the time

why do many people on the right on this forum constantly have to resort (almost immediatley) with anger, insults, etc...   

don't you have any control over your emotions?

[Soul Crusher]

Ryan was part of bamas own debt commission.  Simpson bowels presented a tame plan and bama tossed that aside in the trash. Who cares about saxby?  Reality is that ryan is one of the few sober people up there.

[Fury]

If you paid attention you'd notice I said "start to see a turn around"

why are you so fucking angry all the time

why do many people on the right on this forum constantly have to resort (almost immediatley) with anger, insults, etc...  

don't you have any control over your emotions?

Angry? No. Amazed that you actually just made the claims you did? Definitely. You continue to amaze with your stupidity. I thought you couldn't top your "the post office is doing great" fiasco but, as of late, you've been going above and beyond in that regard.

And I'm not on the right. I lean well to the left socially with regards to topics like homosexuality and abortion and towards the right fiscally. You know, a level-headed person (i.e. an independent) who doesn't blindly follow his leader like a sheeple (i.e. you). I'm also fine with taxing the rich at Clinton levels. What I'm not fine with is bleeding them dry like people like you want while 50% of this country pays no taxes of their own.

But please enlighten me. How is 10%+ unemployment, $4+/gal gas along with rising inflation signs of a recovering economy? And how is an $84 billion taxpayer loss on GM something to be proud of?

[Straw Man]

Angry? No. Amazed that you actually just made the claims you did? Definitely. You continue to amaze with your stupidity. I thought you couldn't top your "the post office is doing great" fiasco but, as of late, you've been going above and beyond in that regard.

And I'm not on the right. I lean well to the left socially with regards to topics like homosexuality and abortion and towards the right fiscally. You know, a level-headed person (i.e. an independent) who doesn't blindly follow his leader like a sheeple (i.e. you).

But please enlighten me. How is 10%+ unemployment, $4+/gal gas along with rising inflation signs of a recovering economy? And how is an $84 billion taxpayer loss on GM something to be proud of?

when did I say I was proud GM?

enlighted you?

I can't even get you to set aside your preconceived bias and just look at some facts

I don't see any value in further investment of my time with you

 

[Fury]

when did I say I was proud GM?

enlighted you?

I can't even get you to set aside your preconceived bias and just look at some facts

I don't see any value in further investment of my time with you

 

What facts? According to Gallup, an objective polling source, unemployment is still over 10%. Gas is over $4 and fast approaching $5. Inflation is hitting all commodities hard and is only going to get worse. There is no economic recovery beyond you claiming there is.

What facts about the auto industry being saved? GM is still a colossal mess and all the taxpayer got out of that was an $84 billion loss.

How were the financial markets stabilized? The financial legislation passed actually ensured that "too big to fail" is going to continue. Good work on that one, too!

[Soul Crusher]

Ryan at least is being honest about our problems. Of course the other hacks are running for the hills. 

[Straw Man]

Ryan at least is being honest about our problems. Of course the other hacks are running for the hills. 

it not that he's not being honest with our problems

it's that his solutions suck

I'm sure seniors will be on board with privatizing medicare

[tu_holmes]

We've tried this spending game for 2 years now. All it has gotten us is an astronomical debt and zero jobs to show for it. The stimulus, which was marketed as essential to keeping unemployment under 8%, has done nothing and unemployment now sits in excess of 10%. How much more do we spend before we conclude that it doesn't work? $10 trillion more? $20 trillion more?

Spending has not worked nor will it work.

I agree.

[Fury]

it not that he's not being honest with our problems

it's that his solutions suck

I'm sure seniors will be on board with privatizing medicare

You leftists have yet to present a counter-proposal. If his solutions suck so bad then it should be easy to prove that. Yet you guys would rather lie through your teeth and sling insults.

[Soul Crusher]

The solutions no matter what will require pain.  Its a matter of how much. Sadly obamacare was a massive waste of time and didn't do dick but make matters drastically worse. 

[Straw Man]

You leftists have yet to present a counter-proposal. If his solutions suck so bad then it should be easy to prove that. Yet you guys would rather lie through your teeth and sling insults.

spending cuts + specific tax increases

I've said that many times

there are two sides to this equation

Repub plan is always more tax cuts (and always to the wealthy who wouldn't notice the tax savings or the tax cost) and cuts to the most vulnerable segment of our society and whenever they've done this it's always led to even larger deficits.   We now have 30 years of proof