Apr 13, 2011

GOP budget plan is ‘Ludicrous and Cruel’ and ‘radical, almost otherworldly’

The proposed budget by the U.S. House Republicans really illustrates what the Grand Oil Party really stands for: throwing money at the super rich while shredding the social safety net and attacking the poor and the middle class.

Nobel Prize Economist Paul Krugman calls the budget floated by Paul Ryan “Ludicrous and Cruel” saying it is “voodoo economics …with an extra dose of fantasy, and a large helping of mean-spiritedness.”

The budget assumptions are based on an unemployment rate of 2.8 percent — “a number we haven’t achieved since the Korean War,” and according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the large part of the supposed savings from spending cuts cutting programs that mainly serve low-income Americans will go to pay for more tax cuts for the rich. “In fact, the budget office finds that over the next decade the plan would lead to bigger deficits and more debt than current law. “

LA Times columnist Tim Rutten says Ryan’s fantasy plan “would push the aged into poverty,” calling it an “attempt to abolish Medicare and gut Medicaid, while further lowering the taxes paid by corporations and wealthy individuals.”

It just goes to reason that they want to kill Medicare because it's the most efficient and popular health insurance program in the country with more of each dollar going into actual health care instead of overhead and profits and salary for the CEO. In fact, the prigram operates with 3 percent overhead compared to 15-30 percent by for profit providers.

The CBO has outlined what adoption of this proposal to supplant Medicare with vouchers and private insurance exchanges would mean, and it means “the overall cost of healthcare would go up, and retirees' out-of-pocket medical expenses would double — an increase that would push tens of millions of people living on fixed incomes over the financial brink.”

Henry J. Aaron, a Senior Fellow of Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, confirms that Ryan’s will not reduce the deficit, calling the plan “radical, almost otherworldly.”

In addition to killing Medicare and cutting Medicaid by 75 percent, it cuts spending on just about everything the government does. “By 2050, government spending would be a smaller share of the economy than in any year since the presidency of Herbert Hoover,” and we know how well that turned out. “Among the programs that would suffer drastic reductions would be national defense, housing, education, agriculture, the environment and veterans affairs.”

It’s funny that Republicans like Ronald Reagan and more recently Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter, but now at a critical time when we are coming out of the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression deficits now matter. It’s like they want the economy to tank.


Not Anonymous said...

Hey, you're finally getting it! Yes, it cuts spending on everything the government does. Why? Because government screws up whatever they get their hands on.

Let's assume that the 75% cut in Medicaid was across the board and the entire government expenses were cut by 75%. Where do you think that money goes?

The answer is, the money doesn't go anywhere. It stays in the pockets of the taxpayer. People can be trusted with their own money.

As for your fearmongering on medicare and I believe you mentioned social security, you fail to mention that it does not cut anything for anyone over age 55.

You ought to read the Ryan plan rather than reading what others say about it.

Communications guru said...

Really? I can think of a lot of things government does better; just off the top of my head there is health care insurance and war. I would venture to guess greed causes a lot of abuses in privatization.

“Let's assume that the 75% cut in Medicaid was across the board and the entire government expenses were cut by 75%. Where do you think that money goes? “ That an easy one: where all the money is going now, to the richest 2 percent, and the CBO says the tax money saved from Ryan’s cuts go to give more tax cuts to the rich, not a penny to reduce the deficit.
Right, why listen to a Nobel Prize winning economist or the non-partisan CBO?

Once again, anonymous coward, I am still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

brad said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576256710691188194.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h#articleTabs_comments read this, Krugman might be off his meds again.

Not Anonymous said...

I don't know if I should feel sorry for the Commie Guru or just chalk it up to him being a complete moron.

Government does health care better? Where's your source of proof for this? Can't be from Obamacare because while it's been a year since it passed, it has not gone into effect yet but the premiums for the insurance have skyrocketed. This is even before the oppressive taxes in the bill take hold. So with all of that additional money going in once it's in place, who is going to collect those profit? Or maybe there are no profits because over 1100 waivers have been given to Unions that won't have to take part in the health care takeover by the Socialist Democrats. But to claim that the government does health care better is not just unrealistic, it's really one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard.

Maybe you're talking about Medicare, which is already operating in the red. It's losing money daily. You call it popular but it's not popular. It's a requirement for the elderly. They MUST be on Medicare. So how good is Medicare? Well, those with Medicare don't have full coverage. If they want more coverage other than just basic necessities, they must buy a Medicare Supplement plan.

So you think that money goes to the richest 2%. I wonder how that works. The feds take 39% of the income and the richest 2% get it? I don't think so. The government has it. They take it from those that earn the money (except for their friends like GE). Then they give the money to people that don't work but keep having babies to collect more money. Gee, that's taking from those that have and giving it to those that don't have and didn't earn it. That sounds like....dare I say it?....SOCIALISM. Redistribution of wealth.

So now, with Obamacare, the insurance companies won't be making those profits any longer. Where does that money go? Oh yeah, to the government. They have now become the new insurance companies with the outrageous profits. Gee, I feel better knowing that politicians are going to be made rich from my tax dollars for insurance rather than some CEO from an insurance company. After all, politicians can be trusted with our money and to spend wisely....OH wait. There is a file cabinet in Parkersburg, WV that holds the IOU's from the government for the trillions of dollars the politicians have "borrowed" from Social Security.

I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for Commie Guru. He really is a moron.

kevins said...

You want to talk about ludicrous and cruel. "Ludicrous" would be just about anything that commie guru says.

"Cruel" would be leaving Detroit's poor without bus service, which is what happened today when bus service in Detroit was "disrupted" when 82 bus drivers called in "sick" so that they could attend a rally in Lansing.

So here you have it. A Detroiter doing her best to make ends meet, hold onto a job and provide for her family. But her bus doesn't show up to take her to her job...That's because the bus driver used her tax dollars to skip out on his job and spend a nice spring day in Lansing.

You guys sure talk a good game...but when push comes to shove, you are willing to feed off...and slam...the very hard-working Americans you profess to suppport.

Obviously, I have no problem with people taking legitimate sick days. But these weren't sick days. These were people who lied and got a paid day off to go to a rally. And the people who paid for that free day were left without reliable bus service.

The emergency financial manager can't come soon enough for Detroit.

Not Anonymous said...

Emergency Financial Manager? In Detroit? Not if Councilwoman Watson gets her way. She claims that Detroit is "owed" a bailout from the Feds.

So the Bus Drivers took off for Lansing leaving people stranded and unable to get work. I wonder, are those the "working poor"? Are they the "Middle class workers"? So the Bus union is perfectly willing to let these workers that depend on public transportation suffer by not being able to get work so they can protest a budget in Lansing. What about the budgets of those standing at the bus stand waiting for these deadbeats to show up for work so the ones that want to work, and make the effort to get to work, can go and earn their living.

Detroit doesn't need a bailout. They don't need an EFM. What they need is a padlock. Make it a ghost town. We'll all be better off for it and we won't have to worry about bus drivers serving themselves but not those that they are paid to serve.

Communications guru said...

Exactly, government does health care better. Tell me, what health insurance plan has lower administrative costs, spends more of each dollar on actual health care and is more popular?
The rise in health care premiums has nothing to do with health care insurance reform. When have they not gone up? Hey, those CEOs need their gold-platted yachts.

Sorry, Medicare is not “already operating in the red,” and the CBO says the health care insurance reform bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures and extends Medicare's solvency.

The rich are paying fewer taxes, so where is the money to fund the government coming from? It’s coming from the middle class. That’s just BS: “they give the money to people that don't work but keep having babies to collect more money”?” Yes, there is redistribution of wealth; from the middle class to the rich.

Who said the insurance companies won't be making those profits any longer? How does it get to the government? “They have now become the new insurance companies with the outrageous profits?” More false BS. There is no such thing as a government insurance company, and I think even a moron like you know that’s a lie.

“There is a file cabinet in Parkersburg, WV that holds the IOU's from the government for the trillions of dollars the politicians have "borrowed" from Social Security?” Wow. That old nugget. I haven’t heard that one since Bush tried to privatize SS.

The fact is the Social Security surplus is invested in US Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. According to the Social Security Trustees 2010 report, Social Security can pay full benefits until 2037, at which time, if nothing were done to strengthen its financing, Social Security would still be able to pay about 78 percent of benefits.

Once again, anonymous coward, I am still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

Communications guru said...

That is just rich. Since when do you give a shit abut Detroit or the working poor?

The Detroit News said they experienced a 30-minute delay. Again, there is no such thing as a sick day anymore. If you need to take a day off to go to the doctor for a physical how is that a sick day? You can take a personal day for any reason.

brad said...

What is rich is that wall street article blows the door off krugman and you cant address anything related to that.

the "rich" do end up paying about 17% income taxes with all the loop holes and right offs etc. I would to if I could. flat tax, butthat wont happen because it makes too much sense for everyone and it would shrink the power of the govt while giving it more money.

as for insurance premiums going up, it is true now because the law requires more coverages, how do you think those newer things will get paid for? pretty soon companies will just opt to pay the fine and there will be single payor health care which is what obama has said and wants and then we will be even more financially screwed. just ask england and canada.

fyi, the entire obamacare thing should currently be ceasing and desisting because of the federal judge down in florida, but its not. obama should be held in contempt of court.

so commie guru is a progressive and is ok with people getting paid to not really be sick but doesnt care because they were "sick" and went to lansing? commie guru, sounds like your progressive ideals are socialist in nature. you still havent told us your foundation of beliefs. you make it clear what you are but you tell me im wrong, so straighten it up for us all.

Not Anonymous said...

Recent calculations by the Congressional Budget Office of U.S. tax rates show a highly progressive system. (The numbers are based on 2004 data, but the tax code has not changed much since then.) The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent.
At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.

In short, Commie Guru is just an ass with the party line. But don't worry Commie Guru, we already know that that too is Bush's fault.

Johnny C said...

Not and his alias Brad since when using things that are found on opinion pages count for facts?

Communications guru said...

Seriously? You're giving me an opinion piece from a guy who was the chair of shrub’s Council of Economic Advisors? Give me a break. That’s like an opinion piece of championship football from a member of the Detroit Lions coaching staff.

Here are some facts: median CEO pay jumped 27 percent in 2010, but American workers are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. In 1965 the average CEO was earning 24 times what the average worker was making, but that has jumped to 263 times at a time when workers are making concessions in wages and benefits to make a company solvent.

The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 — up from less than 9 percent in 1976. From 2002 to 2007, that top 1 percent’s pretax income increased an extraordinary 10 percent every year. In that same period, the median income for non-elderly American households went down and the poverty rate rose.

The United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

Still, I wonder what your rant has to do with a budget proposal based on a pie-in-the-sky number of 2.8 percent unemployment that will kill Medicare and Medicaid along with millions of senior citizens and destroys the social safety net. Here are the real death panels.

In short, anonymous coward is just a coward with the party line.

Once again, anonymous coward, I am still waiting for you to back up your outrageous lie that we were “nearly shoulder to shoulder once.”

brad said...

Like your opinion piece from the "conservative" NYT and Paul Krugman? Get real.

In actuallity, the top 1/5th pay close to 86% of income taxes. The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)

Fine lets raise taxes on the wealthiest. You know how much money that will bring in? something like $700 billion, whats that going to do in the grand scheme of things? Trickle down. The lower levels of income people will have to make up for the loss of incomes of the wealthy. More money out of our pockets and then more reliance on Obama and paying our mortgages and gas tanks. The GOVT has a spending problem, it takes in too much and spends even more than it needs to and should.

once again commie guru, im waiting for you to admit you were mistaken about the dems not passing a budget for fiscal year 2011 when they had the majorities 2010 which in essence the triple crown of power AND what it means to be a progressive.