REPUBLICAN BUDGET -- PAUL RYAN

Hi trout,

To be fair, Carter's chief problem was more OPEC than Carter. And we still haven't learned a thing from that blackmail experience and the out-of-control inflation it caused.

LAC, I would be happy to take up this topic of fixing things. I'd like to get some more folks in on this conversation. Any takers?

Hey Guys. Paul the reason I made the comments about Union Leadership is because most (not all) are members of the communist party. Democrats as a whole fair better in that regards but still, 73 of the remaining Democrat members of Congress are members of United Socialists of America. That shocks me almost as much as it saddens me. My father was a Democrat but that was a different time and a different party.

Don't think that I cut the Republicans any slack. This mess is all over their hands as well. In my opinion they have proven themselves to be bought and paid for by certain extremely large corporations and banks which are in most part owned over the pond. The Democrats are as well regardless of illusion they like to put out to the public. Several past Presidents have described these people including Wilson after he decided he had made a deal with the devil. The last to describe them was Kennedy who attempted to wrest the country from their control.

The grip is tightening. Perhaps you haven't noticed it yet in small town Arkansas but you will eventually. Cameras everywhere, facial recognition software having been developed, 3,000 police departments with tanks furnished by the DHS, recent state and national Supreme Court rulings allowing police to enter your home at will without a warrant, your right to resist unlawful search and seizure abolished. The Government is preparing for the future that you cannot admit yet.

If you do not believe America is irretrievably broken and bankrupt I'd really like to hear your version of how it gets fixed along with the odds that it is going to happen before everything falls apart. I would really appreciate it as that would put some sunshine back in my day.

I do not like gloom and doom. But that is exactly what I see under the clouds hanging over this country. Think Argentina 2002.

Here is an article that explains this very well.

http://www.alt-market.com/articles/141-an-agent-of-the-king-in-every-home

Correction on the 3,000 tanks. The company builds 200 per year. There are 3,000 police agencies with swat teams in the U.S. DHS does furnish funding for these to departments that want them and undergo DHS training.

Paul just a little side note. Reagan had to spend the money since Jimmy Carter damn near did away with the Department of Defense during his terrible time in office. I bet he is glad to see BO in office, it takes the heat off him as the worst president of our time.

Hi LawAbidingCitizen,

Thanks for your post. I suspect we have many more places of basic agreement than you might think. Basically, if I need a box to put myself in politically, I'm a Libertarian who believes that a strictly limited government safety net is in fact a necessary part of government in the Country we actually live in. I believe that there are actually many more of us who think this way than polls reflect.

As for private unions, it certainly is the case that there's unsavory leadership in many of them. But any serious student of American history knows that the abuses labor unions addressed were far worse than the abuses labor unions created. As for the communist issue, it may be technically accurate in the early stages but it is also misleading. Corporate control is no better than government control. Neither are what our great Constitution has in mind.

To whatever extent that it may be true that the present Democratic Party leans "socialist," it is equally true that the Republican Party leans toward Oligarchy. Neither are viable economic systems and neither promote the genuine freedom foreseen by our Founders.

I do not believe that America is irretrievably broken. I believe the two major Parties are but an orderly transition in the Libertarian direction is necessary to avoid economic collapse. The same is true of many Government agencies. Orderly review and transition.

As for Oligarchy and Republican Mischief:

Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion. 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.

Hi Paul. I have some issues with private sector unions as well. It doesn't have anything to do with peoples rights to join forces in labor negotiations. I see nothing wrong with that. It has more to do with union leadership and their associations. The whole "workers of the world unite" thing and their alinement's with the Communist Party of America and the Socialist Party of America kind of turn me off. Maybe you dispute that I don't know. If so, I'll provide ample links and videos of union leadership speeches declaring this to be the case.

As to what Government agencies should go. Roughly 90% of them. The vast majority of Agencies were created not to solve problems but for Government control. This goes against the spirit and letter of the Constitution. You know, that document which the President stated was "fundamentally flawed" and many other members of government, elected and appointed, tend to ignore when it suites them.

Your Department of Education example is a good one. Why do we have that department? It has succeeded in accomplishing the exact opposite of it's stated purpose. We spend far more money per student than any other nation yet our students are educated at a level which leaves them at the bottom of the pile compared to the students of every other developed nation. This wasn't the case when the Department of Education was created.

To say that our education problems in this Country are largely social disorder and moral breakdown in nature is absolutely correct. As is true with Socialism, the results of progressive ideology is not the panacea it tries to portray. But then, the leaders who push the ideology are not after results, they are after control. So in effect they are achieving their goals even though their results are failure.

I'm sure we are not on the same page with this and it really doesn't matter. There is nothing either one of us can do at this point to alter the course the nation is on. Our Government drifted from the Constitution while we were looking the other way. Our fate is sealed. The Soviet Union didn't have to "bury us". Our Government "buried us" under the largest mountain of debt the world has ever seen.

Hi trout and LAC,

I would agree that there are lots of "give aways" out there. After corporate welfare and private sector lobbying, Government Labor Unions have cooked up some pretty sweet deals for themselves and have undue political force as a voting block with the cowardly politicians we elect who themselves are way overcompensated.

But those government labor union abuses in pensions and benefits reflect a relatively small number of the total government employment pool -- mostly those who are able to load up overtime in their last few years and have it figured into their pensions. Almost all of that has been shut down now.

Normal private sector unions have my full support. And right now, they are laughably weak. I'd focus instead for the good of America on record corporate profits and stock returns with not "trickle down" in terms of jobs. Also, tax breaks and yet outsourcing of American jobs. It's a scandal.

As for needless government agencies, you really have to get into the specifics or you can shoot yourself in the foot real easily. The issue is more downsizing some of them. As for the Dept. of Education, our education problems in this Country are largely social disorder and moral breakdown in nature, not economic.

Well said.

Paul I agree with you on the give a way to the rich. But that's just one of them. There's the give a way to the public unions. The give a way in the form of no taxes to the poor. There's the give a way in foreign aid. There's the give a way to the U.N. And most expensive of all is the give a way in military hardware being used in three wars. Not to mention the give a way of the lives of a lot of young Americans.

We spend unbelievable amounts of money on agencies and departments we do not even need. If fact, a good argument can be made that America was more prosperous, powerful and better educated before many of these agencies and departments came into being.

The Government cannot restore the economy unless it gets out of the way. I cannot think of a single thing the Government is good at except wasting money.

Hi trout,

I'm all for a hard and serious approach to dealing with the deficit. It is precisely for that reason that I oppose any "supply-side" "trickle-down" economic approach not for any reason other than it is proven not to work under the very administrations that promoted it! Some fact:

Reagan increased the debt by $1.9 Trillion. 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.

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

As the saying goes, "Facts are stubborn things." "Supply-side", "trickle down" just, plain, doesn't work. In fact, it's a giveaway pure and simple to the wealthy without any "trickle down" benefit.

Paul cheap labor has always been there, slaves, children/women, chinese,mexicans what can I say.. One way to level the field would be like Mr. Thrump stated, tariffs. Make it so that competion would be equal for both foreign and American companies. This is where quality would win out and put more Americans to work. It is hard to beat American quality in products made here by us.

Hi trout,

Like I said, I know that tough actions are needed -- after we deal with a tax code that let's GE make 5 billion in profits last year in the USA (15 billion total worldwide) and pay zero in income tax.

I also don't think 15 years is enough "notice" for someone soaked by SECA for years to "replan" their retirement.

As for trickle down, I rather like this bit from the Chicago Tribune:

ChicagoTribune.com>Collections>Tax CutsTrickle-down economics will never work
August 02, 2010"Voice of the People" letter-writer Nancy Triplett is correct: former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has a conveniently short memory. The last time unemployment was this high was in 1983, the third year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, when job-seekers were told to "stay the course". Following Mr. Gingrich's logic, we should be awash in jobs, since the Bush tax cuts are still in place, President Obama and Congress have already given additional tax cuts to 95 percent of the American people, and interest rates are at a record low. Tax cuts in and of themselves do not guarantee job creation, sans increases in demand for consumer goods and services. Merely granting "the rich" tax cuts, rather than tax credits specifically designed for American job creation, leaves them the option of either shopping for lower-cost labor overseas or risking the funds in the next investment bubble. On the other hand, the unemployed will immediately put their benefits back into the economy by paying their bills and buying groceries. "The rich" are not creating jobs in America anymore; they are shipping them overseas in exchange for cheap consumer goods. Therein lies the real problem.

Paul that is what they want to do. The age would be 55 and up will not be effected and the new SS would before anyone under 55 yoa. We need to do something now if anyone really wants to have a secured future. Lets also start reducing our foreign aid and put that money back here. Raising taxes isnot the answer. Making it where companies can expand creating jobs and with those jobs taxes will be paid by those newly employed. That is how we begin to pay off the debt and reduce paying unemployment and other costs that we currently have which were created by a high unemployment rate.

Hi trout,

I'm in favor of a serious and hard approach. My problem starts when taxes aren't a part of it. Those Bush era tax breaks for the wealthiest among us are a scandal. Ryan won't touch them, and they are the only economic class doing well now in this economy.

The other problem I've got is using this language of "entitlement." Like heck it is! I've been paying into Social Security my whole life. I've got the paycheck deductions to show for it. This is promised money and taking it back now is theft pure and simple. If they want to create a new system, start with a new generation.

I am all for it. We need to seriously look at changing it and SS. Times have changed greatly since both were created. People need to look at taking more control of their own future needs and the right changes would help in doing that. ALso will help reduce the debt which will continue to hurt us all if something is not done real soon.

I told friends years ago when the government created the 401 idea that one day the plan was to slowly get out of the SS business and let people create their own financial security that they thought best for them. Now is the time to do just that.

I am not rich just middle class like pretty much everyone I know so major changes will effect me just like everyone else but I am ready to make the changes needed to help our nation's future. My thoughts what are your's.

Hi Forum,

Today was unveiled a Republican counter-budget by Paul Ryan. One news account says this about its impact on Medicare:

"...People now 54 and younger would not get the same Medicare coverage their parents and grandparents have. Instead, future retirees would get a fixed amount from the federal government to buy insurance from a range of regulated private plans. The federal payment would go directly to the health insurance plan. Starting in 2022, the eligibility age for Medicare, now 65, would be gradually increased until it reaches 67 in 2033.

_ Seniors already on Medicare and people within 10 years of retirement would be able to go into the traditional program as it exists today. Once the new program is set up in 2022, beneficiaries in traditional Medicare would be free to switch, but they would be under no obligation to do so.
Link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/paul-ryan-budget-proposal_n_845188.html

How do you feel about that -- especially if you are slated to get the lesser benefit in the future?